This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-9353 
entitled 'U.S. Asylum System: Agencies Have Taken Actions to Help 
Ensure Quality in the Asylum Adjudication Process, but Challenges 
Remain' which was released on September 26, 2008. 

On October 2, 2008, the PDF file was revised to correct figures 2, 5, 
6, 8, 10, 12, and 14, which initially had incorrect information or did 
not correspond with the appropriate figure title. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

September 2008: 

U.S. Asylum System: 

Agencies Have Taken Actions to Help Ensure Quality in the Asylum 
Adjudication Process, but Challenges Remain: 

GAO-08-935: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-935, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Each year, tens of thousands of noncitizens apply in the United States 
for asylum, which provides refuge to those who have been persecuted or 
fear persecution. Asylum officers (AO) in the Department of Homeland 
Security’s (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and 
immigration judges (IJ) in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive 
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) assess applicants’ credibility and 
eligibility. GAO was asked to evaluate aspects of the asylum system. 
This report addresses the extent to which quality assurance mechanisms 
have been designed to ensure adjudications’ integrity, how key factors 
affect AOs’ adjudications, and what key factors affect IJs’ 
adjudications. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed agency documents, 
policies, and procedures; surveyed all AOs, supervisory AOs, and IJs; 
and visited three of the eight Asylum Offices. These offices varied in 
size and percentage of cases granted asylum. Results of these visits 
provided additional information but were not projectable. 

What GAO Found: 

USCIS and EOIR have designed quality assurance mechanisms to help 
ensure the integrity of asylum adjudications, but some can be improved. 
While 75 percent of AO survey respondents reported that basic training 
prepared them at least moderately well to adjudicate cases, they also 
reported that despite weekly training, they needed additional training 
to help them detect fraud, conduct security checks, and assess the 
credibility of asylum seekers. The Asylum Division does not 
consistently solicit AOs’ and supervisory AOs’ input on a range of 
their training needs. Without this, the Asylum Division lacks key 
information for making training decisions. The Asylum Division has 
designed a quality review framework to ensure the quality and 
consistency of asylum decisions. Although supervisors review all cases 
and headquarters reviews certain cases, other local quality assurance 
reviews rarely took place in three of the eight Asylum Offices 
primarily due to competing priorities. By fully implementing its 
quality review framework, the Asylum Division would better identify 
deficiencies, examine their root causes, and take action. The majority 
of IJ survey respondents reported that training enhanced their ability 
to adjudicate asylum cases, although the majority also reported having 
additional training needs. EOIR expanded its training program in 2006, 
particularly for newly hired IJs, and annually solicits IJs’ views on 
their training needs. 

Asylum officers reported challenges in identifying fraud and assessing 
applicants' credibility, as well as time constraints, as key factors 
affecting their adjudications. The majority of AO survey respondents 
reported it moderately or very difficult to identify various types of 
fraud, despite mechanisms designed to help identify fraud and assess 
credibility. Further, assistance from other federal entities to AOs in 
assessing the authenticity of asylum claims has been hindered in part 
by resource limitations and competing priorities. With respect to time 
constraints, 65 percent of AOs and 73 percent of supervisory AOs 
reported that AOs have insufficient time to thoroughly adjudicate 
cases—that is, in a manner consistent with procedures and training— 
while management’s views were mixed. The Asylum Division set a 
productivity standard equating to 4 hours per case in 1999 without 
empirical data. Without empirical data on the time it takes to 
thoroughly adjudicate a case, the Asylum Division is not best 
positioned to know if its productivity standard reflects the time AOs 
need for thorough adjudications. 

Verifying fraud, assessing credibility, and time constraints are also 
key factors affecting IJs’ adjudications. IJ survey respondents cited 
verifying fraud (88 percent) and assessing credibility (81 percent) as 
a moderately or very challenging aspect of asylum adjudications. 
Responding to 2006 Attorney General reforms, EOIR implemented a program 
to which IJs can refer instances of suspected fraud and receive 
information to aid in fraud detection. Eighty-two percent of IJs 
reported time limitations as moderately or very challenging aspects of 
their adjudications. EOIR has detailed IJs to courts with high 
caseloads and plans to hire additional staff, but it is too soon to 
know the extent to which additional staff will alleviate IJs’ time 
challenges. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Asylum Division, among other things, solicit 
information from officers on their training needs, develop a plan to 
implement local quality reviews in all offices, and determine how much 
time is needed to adjudicate a case in a manner consistent with 
procedures and training. DHS and USCIS concurred with GAO’s 
recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-935]. For more 
information, contact Richard M. Stana at (202) 512-8777 or 
stanar@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

The Asylum Division and EOIR Have Designed Quality Assurance Mechanisms 
to Help Ensure the Integrity of Asylum Adjudications, but Some Can Be 
Improved: 

Challenges in Assessing the Authenticity of Claims and Time Constraints 
Are Key Factors Affecting Asylum Officers' Adjudications: 

Key Factors Affecting Immigration Judge Adjudications Are Similar to 
Those Identified by Asylum Officers: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers: 

Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum Officers: 

Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges: 

Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit Methodology: 

Appendix V: Asylum Adjudication Process: 

Appendix VI: Asylum Division and EOIR Caseload and Staffing 
Information: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Asylum Officers Reporting When in Their Career as an Asylum 
Officer It Would Be, or Would Have Been, Moderately or Very Useful to 
Observe Skilled Interviewers: 

Table 2: Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey 
Respondents' Views on the Time Asylum Officers Need to Complete an 
Asylum Case: 

Table 3: Authorized and Available Staffing Levels for Asylum Officers, 
Fiscal Years 2002-2007: 

Table 4: Authorized and Onboard Staffing Levels for Immigration Judges, 
Fiscal Years 2002-2007: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Steps in the DHS Asylum Process: 

Figure 2: Steps in the DOJ Asylum Process: 

Figure 3: Topics Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey 
Respondents Most Frequently Identified as Areas in Which Asylum 
Officers Moderately or Greatly Needed Additional Training: 

Figure 4: Immigration Judge Survey Respondents' Views on Topics for 
Which They Reported a Moderate or Great Need for Additional Training: 

Figure 5: Types of Fraud That Asylum Officer Survey Respondents 
Reported as Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify: 

Figure 6: Percentage of Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Who Reported 
Significant Challenges to Assessing Credibility in about Half or More 
of the Asylum Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year: 

Figure 7: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Viewed as 
Moderately or Very Useful in Providing Information on Individuals Who 
Pose a Risk to National Security or Public Safety: 

Figure 8: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Viewed as 
Moderately or Very Useful in Providing Information on an Applicant's 
Eligibility for Asylum: 

Figure 9: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents Who 
Reported Aspects of Adjudicating Asylum Cases to Be Moderately or Very 
Challenging: 

Figure 10: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge Survey 
Respondents Reported as Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify: 

Figure 11: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge Survey 
Respondents Reported as Presenting a Challenge in Some or All of the 
Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year: 

Figure 12: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents Who 
Reported Impediments to Assessing Credibility in about Half or More of 
the Asylum Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year: 

Figure 13: Asylum Division Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years 
2002-2007: 

Figure 14: EOIR Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years 2002-2007: 

Abbreviations: 

AO: asylum officer: 

AOBTC: Asylum Officer Basic Training Course: 

BIA: Board of Immigration Appeals: 

CCD: Consular Consolidated Database: 

DACS: Deportable Alien Control System: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

EOIR: Executive Office for Immigration Review: 

FDL: Forensic Document Laboratory: 

FDNS: Office of Fraud Detection and National Security: 

FDNS-IO: Office of Fraud Detection and National Security immigration 
officer: 

FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: 

FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982: 

FPC: Fraud Prevention Coordinator: 

IBIS: Interagency Border Inspection System: 

ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

IJ: immigration judge: 

NACARA: Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act: 

NAIJ: National Association of Immigration Judges: 

QA/T: Quality Assurance and Training Coordinator: 

RAPS: Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System: 

State: Department of State: 

USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

US-VISIT: U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 25, 2008: 

The Honorable Steve King: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 
House of Representatives: 

Each year, tens of thousands of individuals representing over 100 
nationalities apply for asylum in the United States. U.S. immigration 
law provides that noncitizens who are in this country--regardless of 
whether they entered legally or illegally--may be granted humanitarian 
protection in the form of asylum if they demonstrate that they cannot 
return to their home country because they have a well-founded fear of 
persecution.[Footnote 1] Federal adjudicators--asylum officers in the 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) and immigration judges in the Executive 
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of Justice 
(DOJ)--assess whether asylum applicants' claims are legitimate and meet 
the eligibility criteria for asylum. 

Asylum decisions can carry serious consequences. Granting asylum to an 
applicant with a genuine claim provides protection from being returned 
to a country where the individual's freedom or life could be 
threatened. On the other hand, granting asylum to an individual with a 
fraudulent claim jeopardizes the integrity of the asylum system by 
enabling the individual to remain in the United States, apply for 
certain benefits such as a Social Security card, and pursue a path to 
citizenship. In the worst case scenario, this could pose a threat to 
our national security or public safety. The 1993 bombing of the World 
Trade Center, the 1993 killings of CIA employees, and a plot to bomb 
New York landmarks were all undertaken by individuals who had applied 
for asylum. Although none of these individuals was granted asylum, the 
attacks of September 11, 2001, have heightened fears that terrorists 
might enter the United States with false documents, file fraudulent 
asylum claims, and become embedded in the U.S. population. 

The very nature of the asylum system puts adjudicators in the position 
of trying to make quality decisions with imperfect information. Asylum 
law states that testimonial information alone can be sufficient for 
asylum applicants to meet the burden of proof for establishing asylum 
eligibility, in part because applicants may not be able to present 
documents if they fled their country of persecution without them, came 
from countries where documentary evidence was not available, or fled 
with fraudulent documents to hide their true identity. As such, 
adjudicators must make decisions at times without documentation to 
support or refute an applicant's claim. Furthermore, economic 
incentives for a better life in the United States can make it 
attractive for aliens to fraudulently apply for asylum status and, 
according to some academic journals and policy reports, fraudulent 
asylum claims are easy to make and difficult to detect. Together, these 
factors create a challenging environment in which adjudicators must 
attempt to reach the best decisions they can. 

You requested that we review aspects of the asylum system. This report 
addresses the following questions: 

* To what extent have quality assurance mechanisms been designed within 
the U.S. asylum system to ensure the integrity of the adjudication 
process? 

* How do key factors affect asylum officers' adjudication of asylum 
cases? 

* What key factors affect immigration judges' adjudication of asylum 
cases? 

To address the first two questions, we reviewed applicable laws, 
regulations, and agency documents, including asylum adjudication 
policies and procedures, asylum officer training materials, and fraud 
referral data. We compared USCIS and EOIR quality-assurance mechanisms 
with criteria in GAO Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government. [Footnote 2] We also reviewed governmental and 
nongovernmental reports and academic journals on asylum issues. In 
addition, we surveyed all 256 asylum officers and all 56 supervisory 
asylum officers who were on board as of September 30, 2006, to obtain 
their views on quality assurance mechanisms and factors that affect 
asylum officers' ability to adjudicate asylum cases. We obtained a 74 
percent and 77 percent response rate, respectively, from the asylum 
officers and supervisors.[Footnote 3] (See app. I and app. II, 
respectively, for the surveys we sent to asylum officers and 
supervisory asylum officers and their aggregate responses.) To gain a 
better understanding of asylum adjudications, we visited three USCIS 
Asylum Offices--Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. The views we 
obtained at these three offices may not be generalized to all eight 
Asylum Offices. However, because we selected these offices based on 
their diversity in size (based on the number of asylum officers and 
cases adjudicated), variation in the percentage of cases granted 
asylum, and disparate geographic location, they provided us with an 
overview and perspective of the asylum process as well as potential 
challenges facing asylum officers. At these offices, we conducted 
semistructured interviews with Asylum Office Directors and Deputy 
Directors, quality assurance and training coordinators, Fraud Detection 
and National Security immigration officers, and selected asylum 
officers and supervisory asylum officers; and observed interviews that 
asylum officers conducted with asylum applicants. In addition, we 
interviewed the asylum officer representative to the American 
Federation of Government Employees. We also interviewed the Directors 
of the other five Asylum Offices as well as headquarters officials from 
USCIS's Asylum Division and Office of Fraud Detection and National 
Security. To further our understanding of federal efforts to address 
fraud in the asylum system, we attended the Asylum Division's December 
2007 Fraud Prevention Conference. Finally, we interviewed DHS officials 
in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Forensic 
Document Laboratory regarding document verification and Identity and 
Benefit Fraud Branch regarding asylum investigations. We interviewed 
officials in the Department of State (State) regarding their role in 
providing information that may help adjudicators distinguish between 
genuine and fraudulent asylum claims. 

To address the third question and further examine the first question in 
the context of the immigration courts, we surveyed all 207 immigration 
judges who were on board as of September 30, 2006, and obtained a 77 
percent response rate[Footnote 4]. (See app. III for the survey we sent 
to immigration judges and their aggregate responses.) We reviewed EOIR 
documents and reports, including Statistical Yearbooks and the 
Immigration Judge Benchbook. We reviewed the Attorney General's 2006 
reforms directed to the immigration courts and information from EOIR 
regarding its implementation of the reforms. We also interviewed EOIR 
headquarters officials. To further our understanding of factors 
affecting immigration judges' asylum adjudications, we interviewed 
representatives of the National Association of Immigration Judges. We 
also observed court proceedings at the Los Angeles immigration court, 
which included hearings on asylum cases, to enhance our understanding 
of the role of immigration judges. To obtain an additional perspective 
on factors that affect asylum adjudicators--both asylum officers and 
immigration judges--we interviewed ICE Assistant Chief Counsels (also 
known as ICE trial attorneys) associated with immigration courts in Los 
Angeles and San Francisco, California, and New York City, New York. 

To provide additional information, we also reviewed Asylum Division as 
well as immigration judge caseload data for fiscal years 2002 through 
2007. To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed existing 
information about the data systems, analyzed the data for obvious 
errors in accuracy or completeness, and compared the data to other 
published reports. We determined that the data were sufficiently 
reliable for presenting overall trends in caseload. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2005 through 
September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
Appendix IV contains more details about our survey and site-visit 
methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

To help ensure the integrity of asylum adjudications, the Asylum 
Division has designed training programs and quality reviews and EOIR 
has designed training programs, but some of these mechanisms can be 
improved. USCIS's Asylum Division provides centralized training to 
asylum officers and supervisors and directs local Asylum Offices to 
provide weekly decentralized training. Seventy-five percent of the 171 
asylum officers who responded to our survey and 14 of the 26 
supervisors who had attended supervisory training at the time of our 
survey reported that the centralized training they received prepared 
them moderately or very well for their roles in adjudicating asylum 
cases. Nevertheless, most asylum officer and supervisor respondents 
also reported areas in which asylum officers needed better or 
additional training to improve their ability to adjudicate cases such 
as in fraud detection and interviewing and assessing credibility. In 
addition, 88 percent of the asylum officers reported that observing 
skilled interviewers would help improve asylum officers' interviewing 
skills, yet 53 percent said they had not had this opportunity. Asylum 
officers not only thought it would be moderately or very useful during 
their first year as an asylum officer (98 percent of those who said it 
would be useful to observe skilled interviewers held this view), but 71 
percent who reported the experience would be useful said it would be 
moderately or very useful during their second year on the job, and 39 
percent reported it would be moderately or very useful between their 
3rd and 5th years. Standards for internal control in the federal 
government state that federal agencies should ensure that management 
provides needed training to staff. Providing additional opportunities 
to observe skilled interviewers could improve asylum officers' ability 
to elicit information during the applicant interview to help 
distinguish between a genuine and fraudulent claim. The Asylum Division 
also does not have a framework for soliciting asylum officers' and 
supervisory asylum officers' views on their training needs in a 
structured and consistent manner, which would help guide headquarters 
and local decisions about what training to provide and whether it is 
needed in all offices. Surveying agency employees about their training 
needs and systematically considering them is a best human-capital 
practice among effective organizations.[Footnote 5] Internal control 
standards also require that federal agencies design controls to assure 
that ongoing monitoring occurs in the course of normal agency 
operations. According to the Asylum Division, a "particularly high 
level" of quality is demanded in asylum decisions to protect the 
integrity of the legal immigration process and to avoid potentially 
serious consequences that could result if an applicant is wrongfully 
returned to his or her home country or an applicant who poses a threat 
to the United States is permitted to stay. As such, it has designed a 
quality review framework to ensure the quality and consistency of 
asylum decisions that includes supervisory review, local quality 
assurance personnel review, and headquarters quality review. However, 
although local quality assurance personnel routinely conducted reviews 
of a sample of asylum officers' decisions in five of the eight Asylum 
Offices, they did not routinely do so in the remaining three. In two of 
these offices, competing work demands impeded conducting these quality 
reviews of asylum officers' decisions, while in the third office the 
quality assurance position was vacant. In addition, although the 
position description for quality assurance personnel included 
responsibilities for observing and evaluating interviews the asylum 
officers conduct, local quality assurance personnel in the three 
offices we visited told us they did not do this, or did this rarely, 
because of other work demands. By more fully implementing its quality 
review framework, the Asylum Division would be in a better position to 
identify deficiencies, examine the root causes of deficiencies, and 
take corrective action, such as addressing deficiencies through 
training. Although the majority of immigration judges who responded to 
our survey reported that EOIR's training and professional development 
opportunities enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, the 
majority also reported needing more training in several areas, 
including identifying fraud. In response to Attorney General reforms, 
EOIR expanded its training program in 2006 to provide additional 
training, primarily for new immigration judges to, among other things, 
increase the time immigration judges spend observing veteran 
immigration judges from 1 week to 4 weeks. In addition, EOIR solicits 
input from immigration judges on their training needs on an annual 
basis. Unlike asylum officers' decisions, immigration judges' decisions 
are not reviewed by a supervisor. Rather, EOIR has an appeals board 
that reviews immigration judges' decisions if they are appealed. 

Challenges in assessing the authenticity of claims--that is, 
identifying fraud and assessing applicants' credibility--and time 
constraints are key factors affecting asylum officers' asylum 
adjudications. Many asylum officers reported difficulties carrying out 
their fraud-related responsibilities. For example, 73 percent of asylum 
officer survey respondents reported it moderately or very difficult to 
identify document fraud. In addition, the majority of asylum officers 
reported significant challenges to assessing credibility in about half 
or more of the cases they adjudicated in the past year. For example, 73 
percent reported that insufficient time to prepare and conduct research 
prior to the interview presented such a challenge. Asylum officers 
reported facing these challenges despite mechanisms USCIS designed to 
help asylum officers identify fraud and assess applicants' credibility, 
such as identity and security check requirements and fraud prevention 
teams in Asylum Offices. Federal entities outside USCIS's Asylum 
Division and Office of Fraud Detection and National Security also have 
a role in combating fraud and confirming the validity of claims, such 
as authenticating documents or providing overseas information about an 
applicant. However, the Forensic Document Laboratory, overseas offices 
within State and USCIS, and ICE investigations have been hindered in 
providing assistance to asylum officers due in part to these 
organizations lacking resources and having competing priorities, 
according to officials from these agencies. Sixty-five percent of 
asylum officers and 73 percent of supervisors who responded to our 
survey indicated that the time asylum officers have available is 
insufficient to conduct adjudications that are thorough--that is, in a 
manner consistent with procedures and training--given the productivity 
standard they are to meet as part of their performance work plan. In 
contrast, views among Asylum Division headquarters officials and Asylum 
Office Directors were mixed regarding whether asylum officers have 
sufficient time to complete a case. Furthermore, adjudication 
requirements, such as added identity and security checks, have 
increased, while the productivity standard has remained unchanged since 
the Asylum Division established it in 1999 without empirical data. We 
have reported that time studies are generally beneficial in that they 
provide quantitative information that can be used to create objective 
and defensible measures of workload.[Footnote 6] Having empirical data 
on which to base the asylum officers' productivity standard would put 
the Asylum Division in a better position to know whether asylum 
officers have the time needed to conduct thorough asylum adjudications. 

Challenges related to fraud, assessing applicants' credibility, and 
time constraints are also key factors that affect immigration judges' 
asylum adjudications. Eighty-eight percent of immigration judge survey 
respondents cited verifying fraud as a moderately or very challenging 
aspect of adjudicating asylum cases and 81 percent reported assessing 
credibility as moderately or very challenging. In response to Attorney 
General reforms, EOIR implemented a program in 2006 to which 
immigration judges can refer instances of suspected fraud and receive 
materials to aid in screening for fraud. Eighty-two percent of 
immigration judges also reported time limitations as moderately or very 
challenging aspects of their asylum adjudications and 77 percent 
reported that managing their caseload was moderately or very 
challenging. The growth in the number of immigration judges has not 
kept pace with the growth in their overall caseload and case 
completions, which may contribute to the challenge. From fiscal years 
2002 through 2007, the number of immigration judges increased by less 
than 1 percent, while the average caseload per immigration judge rose 
by 13 percent, and case completions rose 20 percent. To help courts 
address growing caseloads, EOIR has taken steps including detailing 
immigration judges to courts with high caseloads and plans to hire 
additional staff, including immigration judges, to help immigration 
judges better manage their caseload. However, it is too soon to know 
the extent to which hiring additional staff will alleviate immigration 
judges' time challenges. 

To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, we 
recommend that the Asylum Division explore ways to provide additional 
opportunities for asylum officers to observe skilled interviewers, 
develop a framework for soliciting and acting on asylum officers' and 
supervisory asylum officers' views of their training needs in a 
structured and consistent manner, develop a plan to more fully 
implement its quality review framework, and empirically determine how 
long it takes to thoroughly adjudicate cases and revise the 
productivity standard, if warranted. 

DHS and USCIS concurred with our recommendations. 

Background: 

Asylum, a form of humanitarian protection, is an immigration benefit 
that enables certain noncitizens to remain in the United States and 
apply for lawful permanent residence.[Footnote 7] Asylum provides 
refuge for certain individuals who have been persecuted in the past or 
fear persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, 
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 
[Footnote 8] 

Congress and the executive branch have acted to strengthen the U.S. 
asylum system against the possibility of asylum fraud and limit its 
vulnerability to terrorists using it as a vehicle for remaining in the 
United States. For example, in the mid-1990s, the Asylum Division 
implemented major reforms which, among other things, decoupled 
employment authorization from asylum requests to discourage applicants 
with fraudulent asylum claims from applying for asylum solely to obtain 
a work authorization, and established a goal of completing asylum 
adjudications within 180 days.[Footnote 9] To account for such 
circumstances, the Asylum Division established a national goal to 
complete 75 percent of the cases that are interviewed at local Asylum 
Offices and referred to the immigration courts within 60 days of the 
application date[Footnote 10]; EOIR established a goal that 90 percent 
of all asylum cases be completed within 180 days from the application 
date. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
of 1996 generally codified some of these reforms into law and required 
administrative adjudication of asylum applications, not including 
administrative appeals, within 180 days, absent exceptional 
circumstances.[Footnote 11] It also incorporated certain security 
provisions, including a requirement that the identity of all asylum 
applicants be checked against certain records or databases maintained 
by the federal government to determine if an applicant is ineligible to 
apply for or be granted asylum. 

More recently, the REAL ID Act of 2005 codified existing DOJ precedent 
that (1) the burden is on the applicant to establish past persecution 
or a well-founded fear of persecution and (2) asylum adjudicators have 
the discretion to require documentary support for asylum claims. 
[Footnote 12] Specifically, if an adjudicator determines that the 
applicant should provide evidence to corroborate otherwise credible 
testimony, such evidence is to be provided unless the applicant does 
not have and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence. The act also laid 
out the criteria to be considered in making a credibility 
determination, stating that adjudicators must consider the totality of 
the circumstances and all relevant factors. An adjudicator may base a 
credibility determination on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or 
falsehoods without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or 
falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim, as long as it is 
relevant to the evaluation in light of the totality of the 
circumstances. It also clarified the wording of the terrorist-related 
grounds of ineligibility for a grant. 

Responsibility for the U.S. Asylum System is shared between USCIS in 
DHS and EOIR in DOJ, with asylum officers and immigration judges 
adjudicating asylum cases as well as other types of cases. In addition 
to asylum cases, the Asylum Division's and EOIR's caseloads also 
include certain applications for relief under section 203 of the 
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA)[Footnote 
13] and credible and reasonable fear cases. NACARA cases involve 
certain individuals from Guatemala and El Salvador and former Soviet 
Bloc countries who can have their removal cancelled. Credible fear 
cases involve individuals subject to expedited removal who express an 
intention to apply for asylum or state that they have a fear of 
persecution or torture. Reasonable fear cases involve individuals 
subject to administrative removal or reinstated orders of removal who 
have expressed a fear of persecution or torture if removed. In addition 
to these cases, immigration judges also hear other types of immigration 
cases. 

The Asylum Division and its eight Asylum Offices--Arlington, Chicago, 
Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Newark, and San Francisco-- 
reside within USCIS. Asylum officers are assigned to these eight 
offices and periodically travel to other locations to conduct 
interviews when applicants live outside the general geographic area of 
these offices. In fiscal year 2008, the Asylum Division received about 
$61 million all from USCIS fee-based funding, although no fee is 
charged to apply for asylum.[Footnote 14] Within EOIR, immigration 
judges are positioned organizationally under the Office of the Chief 
Immigration Judge, which is responsible for 54 administrative 
immigration courts.[Footnote 15] The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 
also resides within EOIR and is responsible for hearing appeals of 
immigration judges' asylum decisions, among other kinds of appeals. In 
fiscal year 2008, EOIR received about $238 million to fund all of its 
activities. 

DHS Has a Nonadversarial Adjudication Process: 

DHS's asylum adjudication process involves affirmative asylum claims-- 
that is, claims that are made at the initiative of the alien who is in 
the country either legally or illegally and filed directly with USCIS. 
The affirmative asylum process is nonadversarial in that no government 
official argues in opposition to the asylum applicant, and the asylum 
officer is to be a neutral decision maker. Figure 1 provides an 
overview of the steps typically involved in DHS's asylum process. For 
more detailed information on the asylum process, see appendix V. 

Figure 1: Steps in the DHS Asylum Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure illustrates the steps in the DHS asylum process, as 
follows: 

Affirmative claims: 

DHS Service Center (within 21 days): 
* Alien files asylum application; 
* Service Center personnel, among other things: 
- check for duplicate filings; 
- match or create new file; 
- enter information into the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System (which
automatically initiates certain background, identity, and security 
checks); 
* Applicant is sent a notice to appear for fingerprinting; 

DHS Asylum Office (within 60 days): 
* Applicant receives interview notice within 21 days of filing 
application; 
* Asylum officer adjudicates asylum case including interview; Asylum 
officer typically: 
- reviews applicant file, which includes asylum application, written 
statement, and any supporting documents; 
- ensures background, identity, and security check are conducted; 
- conducts country condition research; 
- conducts nonadversarial in-depth interview with applicant; 
- determines if the applicant is credible and eligible for asylum; 
- verifies and updates information in the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole 
System; 
- ensures appropriate documentation is prepared and placed in file; 
- prepares written decision, including legal analysis; 
* Asylum officer submits written decision to supervisory asylum officer 
for review; 
* Does the supervisory asylum officer sign off on the decision?
- Yes, continue; 
- No, return to previous step in process; 
* Applicant generally picks up decision 14 days after the interview; 
* If decision is to grant asylum: Asylum is granted; 
* If the decision is to not grant asylum: 
* Is the applicant in the U.S. legally? 
- If yes: Applicant is issued a Notice of Intent to Deny; 
- If no: Applicant is issued a Notice to Appear before an immigration 
judge. 

Source: GAO analysis of USCIS data; Art Explosion. 

[End of figure] 

The Asylum Division's Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual and basic 
training materials for asylum officers identify the various tasks 
asylum officers are to perform in adjudicating an asylum case. Asylum 
officers are required to conduct an asylum interview, prior to which 
they must, among other things, review the applicant's file and check 
databases to (1) determine who is included on the application, (2) 
determine when the applicant claims to have entered the United States 
and when he or she filed the asylum application,[Footnote 16] (3) 
become familiar with the applicant's background and claim, and (4) 
identify issues to cover during the interview. In addition, if the 
asylum officer is unfamiliar with country conditions relevant to the 
applicant's claim, the officer should research conditions in that 
country. During the interview, in addition to hearing the applicant's 
testimony, the asylum officer must also explain the process, verify 
basic and biographical information provided on his or her application, 
and place the applicant, the applicant's interpreter, and the 
interpreter monitor under oath. After the interview, the asylum officer 
must update the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System (RAPS); write a 
decision that includes a legal analysis and in most cases citations to 
country conditions; and prepare a decision letter. In making a 
decision, an asylum officer must make a determination of the 
credibility of the applicant and consider if any false submission of 
information is relevant to the claim. On average, asylum officers have 
about 4 hours to complete these tasks for each case. The 4-hour average 
is based on the productivity standard that requires management to 
assign asylum officers work equivalent to 18 asylum cases in a 2-week 
period and allows for 4 hours of training each week. In addition, the 
Asylum Division generally requires that asylum officers submit their 
written decisions to their supervisor within 4 days of conducting an 
applicant interview. 

Affirmative asylum applicants are almost never detained while their 
asylum application is pending. Applicants are free to live in the 
United States pending the completion of their asylum processing. DHS's 
affirmative asylum process can result in asylum officers making one of 
the following decisions regarding the applicant and qualifying 
dependents: [Footnote 17] 

Grant of asylum. The asylum officer grants asylum when he or she 
determines that the applicant is eligible for asylum. The asylees can 
remain in the United States indefinitely unless their asylum is 
terminated. [Footnote 18] Asylees are eligible for certain benefits, 
such as an Employment Authorization Document, an unrestricted Social 
Security card, and medical and employment assistance.[Footnote 19] 
Within 2 years of being granted asylum, asylees can petition for a 
spouse or child who was not included in the original grant of asylum to 
also obtain asylum. In addition, they may also apply for lawful 
permanent residency 1 year after being granted asylum and, ultimately, 
United States citizenship. 

Recommended approval of asylum. The asylum officer issues a recommended 
approval of asylum when he or she determines that the applicant is 
eligible for asylum, but USCIS has not received the results of a 
mandatory FBI name check. The decision to change a recommended approval 
to an asylum grant is contingent on a favorable result from background, 
identity, and security checks (referred to throughout this report as 
identity and security checks). An applicant who receives a recommended 
approval may apply for an Employment Authorization Document, but not 
for other benefits. 

Referral to immigration court. The asylum officer makes a referral to 
the immigration court when the applicant is in the United States 
illegally and the officer determines that the applicant is ineligible 
for asylum. The asylum officer prepares a Notice to Appear before an 
immigration judge. A referral is not a denial of asylum; rather the 
applicant and any of the applicant's dependents also in the United 
States illegally are placed in removal proceedings where an immigration 
judge reviews the asylum case de novo.[Footnote 20] 

Denial of asylum. The asylum officer denies asylum when the applicant 
is in the United States legally and the officer determines that the 
applicant is ineligible for asylum. The asylum officer prepares a 
Notice of Intent to Deny, and the applicant is given 16 days to rebut 
the finding. If the applicant submits a rebuttal, the asylum officer 
reviews it and then approves or denies the claim. If the applicant does 
not rebut the finding or the rebuttal fails to overcome the grounds for 
denial, the applicant is denied asylum but may stay in the United 
States as long as the applicant remains in legal status. 

Not all cases result in an asylum decision. For example, USCIS 
administratively closes a case if the applicant withdraws his or her 
asylum application. From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the asylum 
grant rate for affirmative asylum applications ranged from 30 percent 
to 36 percent for asylum cases that resulted in a decision. [Footnote 
21] 

From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Asylum Division received about 
400,000 new or re-opened asylum, NACARA, and credible and reasonable 
fear cases and completed approximately 750,000 cases.[Footnote 221] 
During this same period, authorized staffing levels for asylum officers 
ranged from a high of 332 officers in 2004 to a low of 291 officers in 
2007. See appendix VI for more information on the Asylum Division's 
caseload and staffing levels. 

DOJ Has an Adversarial Adjudication Process: 

In contrast to DHS's process, DOJ's asylum adjudication process is 
adversarial in that individuals appear in removal proceedings before 
EOIR immigration judges to defend themselves against removal from the 
United States. Immigration judges hear both affirmative asylum claims 
that have been referred to them by an asylum officer as well as 
defensive asylum claims. A defensive claim is made by an alien who 
first requests asylum while in removal proceedings. An alien making a 
defensive claim may have been placed in removal proceedings after 
having been stopped at the border without proper documentation, 
identified as present in the United States illegally, or identified as 
deportable on one or more grounds, such as certain kinds of criminal 
convictions. Applicants who filed for asylum affirmatively with USCIS, 
but were referred to an immigration court and placed in removal 
proceedings, continue to be considered "affirmative" asylum applicants. 
Affirmative and defensive claims follow the same procedures in removal 
proceedings. 

During immigration court proceedings, immigration judges hear witness 
testimony and cross-examinations and review evidence. ICE Assistant 
Chief Counsels, also known as ICE trial attorneys, represent DHS in 
these proceedings. ICE trial attorneys are also responsible for 
ensuring identity and security checks are completed. An applicant in 
immigration proceedings may be represented by an attorney of his or her 
choosing at no cost to the government. Figure 2 provides an overview of 
the steps typically involved in EOIR's asylum process. For more 
detailed information on the asylum process, see appendix V. 

Figure 2: Steps in the DOJ Asylum Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure illustrates the steps in the DOJ asylum process, as 
follows: 

Affirmative claims: 
Alien files an asylum application with USCIS and is referred to an 
immigration court and issued a Notice to Appear. 

Defensive claims: 
Alien first submits an asylum claim before an immigration judge after
being issued a Notice to Appear. 

* Alien is issued a Notice to Appear by DHS; 
* Alien requests asylum as defense against removal; 
* Alien is placed in removal proceedings; 
* Initial hearing is scheduled at an immigration court; 
* Individual merits hearing is scheduled; 
* Immigration judge hears case and makes an asylum decision; 
- Asylum granted: DHS can appeal decision to the BIA; 
- Asylum denied: Applicant can appeal decision to the BIA. 

Source: GAO analysis of USCIS data; Art Explosion. 

[End of figure] 

EOIR's asylum adjudication process can result in immigration judges 
making one of the following decisions regarding the applicant and 
qualifying dependents: 

Grant of asylum. The immigration judge grants asylum when he or she 
determines that the applicant is eligible for asylum. The asylees can 
remain in the United States indefinitely, unless DOJ terminates asylum. 
A grant of asylum from an immigration judge confers the same benefits 
on an asylee as a grant of asylum from an asylum officer, which are 
discussed earlier in this report. 

Denial of asylum. The immigration judge denies asylum when he or she 
determines that the applicant is ineligible for asylum and may order 
the applicant to be removed from the United States unless the 
immigration judge grants the applicant another form of relief from 
removal.[Footnote 23] 

EOIR may also close a case without making a decision for such reasons 
as a request to move a case from one court to another or the applicant 
withdrawing or abandoning his or her application for asylum. From 
fiscal years 2002 through 2005, the asylum grant rate in the 
immigration courts remained fairly consistent at around 37 percent, and 
increased to 45 percent in 2006 and 46 percent in 2007. [Footnote 24] 

From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the immigration courts received 
about 1.9 million newly filed or reopened immigration cases, and 
completed about the same number of cases. During this same time, the 
number of authorized immigration judges increased from 216 in fiscal 
year 2002 to 251 in fiscal year 2007. See appendix VI for more detailed 
information on EOIR's caseload and staffing. 

The Asylum Division and EOIR Have Designed Quality Assurance Mechanisms 
to Help Ensure the Integrity of Asylum Adjudications, but Some Can Be 
Improved: 

To help ensure quality in adjudications, the Asylum Division has 
designed training programs and quality reviews and EOIR has designed 
training programs, but some can be improved. The Asylum Division has 
designed a framework for training asylum officers and their 
supervisors. However, despite general satisfaction with the initial 
training that officers receive, many asylum officers and supervisors 
agreed that asylum officers needed additional training in a number of 
areas--such as identifying fraud, conducting identity and security 
checks, and assessing credibility--to improve their ability to carry 
out their responsibilities. Also, 88 percent of asylum officers 
expressed the view that observing skilled interviewers would help 
improve their interviewing skills, yet 53 percent of asylum officers 
reported they had not had the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the 
Asylum Division does not have a framework in place to solicit asylum 
officers' or supervisors' views on training needs in a structured and 
consistent manner. The Asylum Division has designed a framework for 
quality reviews, including those conducted by supervisors and other 
local and headquarters personnel. Although supervisors review all 
asylum officer decisions and headquarters personnel review certain 
cases, other quality reviews had not occurred in three of the eight 
Asylum Offices. With respect to EOIR, although the majority of 
immigration judges reported the training they received enhanced their 
ability to adjudicate asylum cases, the majority reported needing 
additional training in several areas, including identifying fraud. EOIR 
expanded its training program primarily for new immigration judges in 
2006 and annually solicits input from immigration judges on their 
training needs. According to EOIR, BIA reviews of appealed cases 
provide another means of quality assurance. 

Asylum Officers and Supervisors Receive Training, but Most Reported 
Having Additional Training Needs: 

The Asylum Division provides training to asylum officers and 
supervisory asylum officers (i.e., centralized training) and directs 
local Asylum Offices to provide weekly training (i.e., decentralized 
training), but most asylum officers and supervisors who responded to 
our survey reported that better or more training was needed, 
particularly in the area of fraud, to improve asylum officers' ability 
to adjudicate asylum cases. The mix of centralized and decentralized 
training that officers receive reflects elements of a strategic 
approach to training that we have described in previous work. [Footnote 
25] Centralized training consists of a 5-week Asylum Officer Basic 
Training Course (AOBTC) that addresses most facets of the asylum 
adjudication process and is usually offered about twice each year at 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to recently hired 
asylum officers. To adjudicate asylum claims, asylum officers must 
either complete this training program or be certified at their 
respective Asylum Office.[Footnote 26] In addition, a 5-week basic 
training course on immigration law for USCIS adjudications officers and 
asylum officers is generally provided at FLETC or another USCIS 
facility within an asylum officer's first year. The Asylum Division 
also periodically offers a 2-week supervisory training program in 
Washington, D.C., for supervisory asylum officers and Asylum Office 
Directors and Deputy Directors that concentrates primarily on advanced 
asylum law issues and the review of asylum officer decisions. 
Additionally, USCIS said that the Asylum Division created a new 
management position--a Chief of Training--to take actions to improve 
the training of asylum officers. The first Chief of Training came on 
board on August 31, 2008. 

Most asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers who responded to 
our survey reported that the centralized training they received 
generally prepared them for their roles. Specifically, 75 percent of 
asylum officers reported that AOBTC prepared them moderately or very 
well to adjudicate asylum cases, a positive view of AOBTC that held 
regardless of their length of experience as asylum officers. However, 
more than 75 percent of asylum officers also believed that AOBTC needed 
improvement to better prepare them to identify possible fraud and 
conduct identity and security checks. Among the 26 supervisory asylum 
officers who had attended the supervisory training program prior to 
completing our survey, 14 said that, overall, the training prepared 
them moderately or very well to review asylum officer[Footnote 27] 
decisions. Nevertheless, 13 of those who had attended the training 
reported that the supervisory training program needed to be improved to 
help them better provide feedback on asylum officer written decisions, 
while 12 reported improvements were needed to help them better 
understand and contribute to the Asylum Division's efforts to combat 
asylum fraud and 12 reported improvements were needed to help them 
better analyze credibility. 

In addition to the centralized training programs, the Asylum Division 
requires that asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers 
participate in ongoing decentralized training at local Asylum Offices, 
where local Quality Assurance and Training Coordinators (QA/T) are 
responsible for developing training to meet the needs of each office. 
Asylum Offices are to allocate 4 hours each week for formal or informal 
training to asylum officers and their supervisors. The training can 
range from classroom instruction by the local QA/T to individual study 
time that officers can use for such learning activities as staying 
current with case law, researching conditions around the world 
affecting asylees and refugees, and reading new procedures issued by 
headquarters. Although QA/Ts, in consultation with local office 
management, have significant discretion in deciding what training to 
provide, officials from the Training, Research, and Quality Branch said 
they review each office's quarterly training reports to ascertain what 
training has been provided and is planned. In addition, the Asylum 
Division provides training materials to all the offices to ensure a 
national, consistent training approach when warranted. For example, 
after the REAL ID Act was passed, the Asylum Division distributed 
explanatory PowerPoint presentations and descriptions of the statutory 
changes. 

Notwithstanding the training asylum officers and supervisors receive, 
most identified areas in which they said they needed additional 
training on fraud-related topics as well as other areas. As figure 3 
shows, at least 75 percent of asylum officers or 75 percent of 
supervisory asylum officers who responded to our survey identified 15 
specific topics (from about 25 training topics about which we inquired) 
as areas in which asylum officers needed more training to improve their 
ability to adjudicate asylum claims. Furthermore, supervisory asylum 
officers consistently viewed asylum officers' need for additional 
training as greater than asylum officers' perceptions of their own 
needs. We do not know why, in some instances, there were sizable 
differences between asylum officers' and supervisors' views of asylum 
officers' training needs. However, supervisors have a broader 
perspective since multiple asylum officers report to them. 

The training topics identified were in areas related to fraud, identity 
and security checks, interviewing and assessing credibility, relevant 
statutes, time management, and the Asylum Virtual Library--the Asylum 
Division's online library. 

Figure 3: Topics Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey 
Respondents Most Frequently Identified as Areas in Which Asylum 
Officers Moderately or Greatly Needed Additional Training: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Training topic: Identifying fraudulent documents; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 82.9; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 85. 

Training topic: Current trends in fraud; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 79; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 92.5. 

Training topic: Identifying fraud in the claim; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 77.1; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 80. 

Training topic: Identifying preparer fraud; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 71.9; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 80. 

Training topic: Identifying attorney fraud; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 67.3; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 75. 

Training topic: Identifying interpreter fraud; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 65.1; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 82.1. 

Training topic: Interpreting results of identity and security checks: 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 68; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 87.5. 

Training topic: Conducting identity and security checks; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 62.7; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 85. 

Training topic: Assessing credibility; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 64.2; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 95. 

Training topic: Overall interviewing skills; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 38.9; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 87.5. 

Training topic: Eliciting sufficient information during interviews[A]; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 0; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 83. 

Training topic: Applying the REAL ID Act; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 67.7; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 90. 

Training topic: U.S. asylum law; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 44; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 77.5. 

Training topic: Time management; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 56.8; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 85. 

Training topic: Using the Asylum Virtual Library; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 43.8; 
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 75. 

Notes: Asylum officer respondents: n=171. 

Supervisory asylum officer respondents: n=40. 

There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items. 

The training topics included in this chart are those respondents most 
frequently identified--that is, at least 75 percent of asylum officers 
or 75 percent of supervisory asylum officers identified these topics as 
areas in which asylum officers moderately or greatly needed more 
training. We asked asylum officers about 25 training topics and asked 
supervisory asylum officers about those same 25 topics plus 2 
additional ones. (See survey questions in app. I and app. II for the 
full list of training topics.) 

[A] We asked only supervisory asylum officers about this topic. 

[End of figure] 

Fraud-detection training. USCIS's Strategic Plan calls for training 
adjudications staff, which includes asylum officers, to proactively 
identify fraud when considering applications for immigration benefits. 
However, 77 percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey 
reported that AOBTC's training needed to be improved with respect to 
identifying possible fraud. Asylum Division officials told us that 
despite a number of improvements, they also saw fraud-detection 
training as one of the areas that requires further refinement in the 
AOBTC curriculum but had not updated AOBTC's written lesson plan on 
fraud since 2002 because (1) USCIS's fraud-prevention program had been 
evolving since its creation of its Office of Fraud Detection and 
National Security (FDNS) in 2004 and placement of FDNS immigration 
officers (FDNS-IO) at Asylum Offices and (2) revising other lesson 
plans, such as those related to national security issues, had taken 
priority. However, they explained that despite not having updated the 
written lesson plan, fraud-prevention training at AOBTC had undergone 
significant changes since 2002 and continues to undergo change. For 
example, since 2002, the Asylum Division added training sessions at 
AOBTC on the role of FDNS-IOs in Asylum Offices, a workshop on how to 
make fraud referrals, a "hands on" session on identifying features of 
fraudulent documents, and a fraud-prevention computer lab session 
emphasizing the electronic resources available to asylum officers. 
According to Asylum Division officials, since 2006, AOBTC has dedicated 
6 or more hours to fraud-detection training. Although the Asylum 
Division has made changes to improve fraud-detection training at AOBTC, 
our 2007 survey found that 70 percent (19 of 27) of new asylum officer 
respondents (who would have attended AOBTC since 2006) reported that 
fraud detection-training at AOBTC needed to be improved to better 
prepare them to identify fraud. Those with longer tenure (who would 
have attended AOBTC prior to 2006) also held this view. Eighty-one 
percent (79 of 98) of respondents who attended AOBTC and had been 
asylum officers for at least 1 year but less than 10 years, and 94 
percent (30 of 32) of those who attended AOBTC and had been asylum 
officers for 10 years or more, reported that AOBTC fraud-detection 
training needed improvement. 

Asylum officers' views that more fraud-related training was needed to 
improve their ability to adjudicate asylum claims extended beyond the 
AOBTC curriculum to the ongoing training sessions that take place at 
their respective Asylum Offices. Overall, at least 75 percent of both 
asylum officer and supervisory asylum officer survey respondents 
reported that asylum officers needed additional training on identifying 
fraudulent documents, current trends in fraud, and identifying fraud in 
the claim. In addition, the majority of asylum officers and supervisors 
reported, overall, that asylum officers also needed additional training 
on identifying preparer fraud (i.e., fraud perpetrated by an individual 
who prepared the applicant's application), attorney fraud (i.e., fraud 
perpetrated by an attorney representing the applicant), and interpreter 
fraud (i.e., fraud perpetrated by an individual who translates during 
the applicant's interview). These results were generally consistent 
across Asylum Offices--that is, at least half of the supervisors in all 
eight Asylum Offices reported that asylum officers needed additional 
training in these fraud-related topics, and the majority of asylum 
officers reported this need in seven of the eight offices. 

According to Asylum Division officials, since 2006, the Asylum Division 
has required that each Asylum Office have at least two of their staff 
trained by ICE's Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL). These staff attend 
a 3-day training that focuses on methods for detecting fraudulent 
features in documents as well as security features in genuine 
documents. Staff who have completed this training are responsible for 
training other asylum officers and serving as in-house resources on 
document issues. According to Asylum Division officials, as of June 
2008, the Asylum Division had 34 staff who received this FDL training. 

Identity and security checks. Checking asylum applicants' identity 
against appropriate records and databases is required by asylum law and 
Asylum Division procedures and is a tool to help determine whether 
certain applicants may be ineligible for asylum protection. The results 
of required checks may uncover, for example, that an applicant may be 
barred due to national security concerns. Despite their importance to 
the integrity of the asylum process, 63 percent of asylum officers and 
85 percent of supervisory asylum officers (34 of 40)[Footnote 28] who 
responded to our survey reported that asylum officers moderately or 
greatly needed additional training on conducting identity and security 
checks. 

AOBTC provides a general exposure to the topic of databases and 
identity and security checks, and, according to 76 percent of asylum 
officer respondents, this was an area that needed to be improved at 
AOBTC to better prepare them to make asylum decisions. The latest AOBTC 
Validation Study,[Footnote 29] which was completed in 2003, noted that 
completing identity and security checks was among the critical tasks 
asylum officers perform and recommended that asylum officers receive 
basic orientation to this task at AOBTC, followed by on-the-job 
training at their local Asylum Office. Officials from the Asylum 
Division's Training, Research, and Quality Branch explained that new 
asylum officers should receive local training on databases because the 
databases asylum officers are required to check are not all accessible 
at AOBTC. Further, the expertise for teaching how to conduct and 
interpret the results of identity and security checks resides among 
staff at local Asylum Offices. 

Most asylum officers who responded to our survey reported that they 
understood the information in the databases they check, yet the 
majority of asylum officer and supervisor respondents said that asylum 
officers still needed more training on identity and security checks. 
Eighty-eight percent of asylum officer respondents reported that they 
moderately or greatly understood the type of information contained in 
the various databases or systems they check as well as the results they 
receive. Nevertheless, 68 percent of asylum officers thought additional 
training was moderately or greatly needed at their local offices on 
interpreting the results of identity and security checks--a view held 
by 88 percent of supervisors (35 of 40). Sixty-three percent of asylum 
officer respondents thought more training was moderately or greatly 
needed locally on conducting these checks--a view held by 85 percent of 
supervisors (34 of 40). This view was fairly consistent across all 
eight Asylum Offices--that is, at least half of the supervisors 
reported this training need for asylum officers in all eight Asylum 
Offices, while the majority of asylum officers reported this need in 
seven of the eight offices. In providing survey comments, one asylum 
officer expressed the opinion that training is needed on how to read 
the results from all the identity and security checks because, although 
officers do these checks as required, they do not know what to do if 
they get a hit that indicates that the applicant may be a national 
security or public safety threat. In an effort to keep asylum officers 
informed of policies and procedures for conducting checks, the Asylum 
Division issued an Identity and Security Checks Procedures Manual in 
2005 and has updated it three times between March 2007 and May 2008. 

Interviewing and assessing credibility. Assessing credibility involves 
a determination of whether all of the evidence indicates that the 
applicant's testimony is credible. An asylum officer may find the 
applicant to be credible if he or she determines, upon considering the 
totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, that an 
applicant's testimony is consistent, detailed, and plausible. The 
ability to elicit information through applicant interviews is a 
critical component of an asylum officer's ability to distinguish 
between genuine and fraudulent claims. Internal control standards for 
the federal government state that agencies should, among other things, 
ensure that management identifies skills personnel need to perform jobs 
and provide the needed training to staff.[Footnote 30] 

Responses from asylum officers and supervisors to several survey 
questions pointed to the need for additional training or learning 
opportunities to improve asylum officers' interviewing skills, 
including assessing credibility. Sixty-four percent of asylum officers 
who responded to our survey reported a moderate or great need for more 
training on assessing credibility. To a much greater extent, 
supervisors, who are required to observe one interview each month 
conducted by each asylum officer they supervise, thought that asylum 
officers needed more interview-related training. Furthermore, 95 
percent of supervisor respondents (38 of 40) reported that asylum 
officers moderately or greatly needed additional training in assessing 
credibility--more than in any of the 27 training areas about which we 
inquired--to improve their ability to adjudicate asylum claims. Eighty- 
eight percent of supervisors (35 of 40) reported that asylum officers 
needed more training in overall interviewing skills and 83 percent of 
supervisors (33 of 40) thought asylum officers needed more training on 
eliciting sufficient information during interviews. According to a 
supervisory asylum officer with local anti-fraud responsibilities, 
interviewing is the only realistic basis for fraud deterrence and new 
officers should be informed from the start that if they cannot develop 
sophisticated fraud-sensitive interviewing skills, they will not be 
able to make meaningful adjudications. 

According to 88 percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey, 
having the opportunity to observe interviews conducted by skilled 
interviewers would be a moderate to very useful way to improve 
officers' interviewing skills, yet 53 percent reported not having had 
the opportunity to do so. Of those asylum officers who said observing 
skilled interviewers would be useful, 98 percent reported this would be 
moderately or very useful during their first year on the job and many 
thought this would be of value beyond their first year, as shown in 
table 1. Standards for internal control in the federal government state 
that federal agencies should ensure that management provides needed 
training to staff. Providing additional opportunities to observe 
skilled interviewers would help asylum officers refine their interview 
techniques to elicit information to use in assessing credibility, 
determining eligibility, and distinguishing between genuine and 
fraudulent claims. 

Table 1: Asylum Officers Reporting When in Their Career as an Asylum 
Officer It Would Be, or Would Have Been, Moderately or Very Useful to 
Observe Skilled Interviewers: 

Stage in asylum officer career: During 1st year; 
Percentage of asylum officers reporting moderately or very useful: 98. 

Stage in asylum officer career: During 2nd year; 
Percentage of asylum officers reporting moderately or very useful: 71. 

Stage in asylum officer career: Between 3rd and 5th year; 
Percentage of asylum officers reporting moderately or very useful: 39. 

Stage in asylum officer career: After 5th year; 
Percentage of asylum officers reporting moderately or very useful: 32. 

Stage in asylum officer career: When returning to affirmative asylum 
adjudications after other assignments or rotations; 
Percentage of asylum officers reporting moderately or very useful: 54. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[End of table] 

Relevant statutes (the REAL ID Act and U.S. asylum law). Given that 
writing a legal analysis is part of every asylum decision they make, 
asylum officers must know how to read and interpret precedent decisions 
and stay current with case law. The REAL ID Act of 2005 made changes 
that apply to asylum adjudications of applications filed on or after 
May 11, 2005. In addition to developing AOBTC lesson plans, the Asylum 
Division developed training materials on the REAL ID Act and required 
that all Asylum Offices provide local training no later than May 30, 
2006. Nevertheless, when we conducted our surveys in March through May 
2007, 68 percent of asylum officers and 90 percent of supervisory 
asylum officers (36 of 40) who responded reported that asylum officers 
had a moderate or great need for additional training on how to apply 
the REAL ID Act in adjudicating asylum decisions. Further, 44 percent 
of asylum officers and 78 percent of supervisory asylum officers (31 of 
40) who responded to our survey indicated that asylum officers had a 
moderate or great need for additional training on U.S. asylum law, in 
general--for example, on case law and statutory and regulatory changes. 

Time management. Fifty-seven percent of asylum officer respondents and 
85 percent of supervisory asylum officer respondents (34 of 40) 
reported that asylum officers had a moderate or great need for 
additional training on time management. An Asylum Office Deputy 
Director explained that without good time management skills, asylum 
officers can easily fall behind on their workload and it can be 
impossible to catch up. Later in this report we will discuss, in depth, 
how time constraints challenge asylum officers and how this affects 
their adjudications. 

Using the Asylum Virtual Library. The Asylum Virtual Library is an 
online collection of documents produced and collected by the Asylum 
Division and Asylum Offices. Documents in the online library are 
organized into folders and include case law, country-conditions 
information, decision-writing templates, forms, policies and 
procedures, statistics, and training materials. Asylum Office personnel 
can find information by browsing through the folders or by conducting 
searches. Forty-four percent of asylum officers and 75 percent of 
supervisors (30 of 40) who responded to our survey reported that asylum 
officers had a moderate or great need for additional training on using 
the Asylum Virtual Library.[Footnote 31] 

Asylum Division Does Not Solicit Officers' Views on Training in a 
Structured and Consistent Manner: 

Although our surveys of asylum officers and supervisors revealed some 
widely held views about asylum officers' and supervisors' training 
needs, the Asylum Division does not have a framework in place for 
soliciting asylum officers' and supervisors' views on their training 
needs in a structured and consistent manner. Obtaining information in 
this manner would improve headquarters' and Asylum Offices' knowledge 
of asylum officers' and supervisory asylum officers' ongoing training 
needs and the ability to use training to meet those needs. We have 
previously reported that a best human-capital practice among effective 
organizations is to survey or interview agency employees to obtain 
their views on training programs that might be needed and 
systematically consider and act on employees' suggestions for improving 
or developing training, when appropriate.[Footnote 32] The Asylum 
Division requests general written feedback from new asylum officers on 
the training they received at AOBTC.[Footnote 32] In addition, all 
eight Asylum Office Directors stated that their offices had used ad hoc 
methods to obtain input from officers on unmet training needs, such as 
asking for feedback at training sessions or periodically e-mailing 
officers for training suggestions. However, these methods varied among 
offices and were not done in a consistent manner using a structured 
approach to collect the information. 

Nevertheless, 63 percent of the asylum officers who responded to our 
survey said their Asylum Office had not solicited their views on what 
training should be offered locally. Responses varied by Asylum Office. 
In four of the eight offices, between half and three-fourths of the 
asylum officers said their views had been solicited; but in the 
remaining four offices, no more than 15 percent said their views had 
been solicited. Training, Research, and Quality Branch officials said 
that, at the national level, they rely on Asylum Office Directors for 
feedback on whether they are meeting officers' needs and also request 
information on asylum officer training needs and activities during 
monthly conference calls with local QA/Ts. 

The Asylum Division Designed a Framework for Quality Reviews, but Local 
Quality Assurance Reviews Do Not Always Occur: 

The Asylum Division has designed a three-tiered framework for 
conducting quality reviews in Asylum Offices and headquarters to help 
ensure the quality and consistency of asylum decisions, but local 
quality assurance reviews--one of the three tiers--do not always occur. 
According to the Asylum Division, a "particularly high level" of 
quality is demanded in asylum decisions to protect the integrity of the 
legal immigration process and to avoid potentially serious consequences 
that could result if an applicant is harmed after being wrongfully 
returned to his or her home country or if an applicant who poses a 
threat to the United States is wrongfully permitted to stay. As such, 
it has designed a quality review framework that includes supervisory 
review, local QA/T review, and headquarters quality review. Together, 
these reviews are intended, among other things, to help ensure quality 
and consistency as well as identify deficiencies that might be 
addressed through training. This framework is in keeping with internal 
control standards for the federal government, which state that agencies 
should assure that ongoing monitoring occurs in the course of normal 
operations.[Footnote 34] 

Supervisory review. The Asylum Division requires a supervisory asylum 
officer to sign off on every asylum decision to indicate that it is 
supported by law and that procedures are properly followed.[Footnote 
35] Supervisory review is intended to assure quality and provide 
consistency in decision making--not to ensure the supervisor agrees 
with the specific decision the asylum officer reached. Asylum Office 
Directors generally agreed that the 100 percent supervisory review 
requirement was important for reasons that included the complexity of 
asylum adjudications. One Asylum Office Director characterized the 
requirement as the key to the Asylum Division's success. The majority 
of the 171 asylum officers and 40 supervisory asylum officers who 
responded to our survey considered these reviews as moderately or very 
effective in ensuring compliance with procedures (72 percent and 90 
percent, respectively) and improving the quality of decisions (53 
percent and 83 percent, respectively). Further, 37 percent of asylum 
officers and 73 percent of supervisors reported that the supervisory 
review promoted consistency in decision making.[Footnote 36] 

Local quality-assurance review. The Asylum Division created the QA/T 
position in each Asylum Office to, among other things, review a sample 
of asylum decisions for quality and consistency and observe asylum 
officer interviews to assess interview techniques. According to the 
Chief of the Training, Research, and Quality Branch, QA/T reviews are 
similar to supervisory reviews in that both assess the legal 
sufficiency of decisions. In addition, QA/Ts are in a position to take 
a broader view by looking for consistency across each Asylum Office and 
identifying office training needs that may surface from their quality 
reviews. The 1997 QA/T position description outlined quality assurance 
review responsibilities in addition to training responsibilities as 
including (1) reviewing a representative sample of written decisions 
for quality, consistency, and timeliness with an emphasis on 
identifying patterns of inconsistency, faulty legal analysis, trends, 
misuse of country-conditions information, or procedural or technical 
errors; (2) reviewing sensitive cases before they are forwarded to 
Asylum Division headquarters for review (see the following section on 
headquarters quality review for more on these sensitive cases); and (3) 
observing interviews conducted by asylum officers to identify strengths 
and weaknesses in interviewing techniques. It further stated that QA/T 
responsibilities included developing weekly training sessions that 
address, among other things, the interviewing and adjudication 
deficiencies noted during quality assurance reviews. Thus, by having 
responsibility for reviewing asylum officers' decisions and observing 
interviews, as well as providing training, it was intended that the QA/ 
T would be in a position to ensure any observed deficiencies could be 
addressed through training and brought to local management's attention. 

In 1998, the Asylum Division also communicated that quality assurance 
responsibilities should occupy the greatest portion of a QA/Ts' time, 
in contrast to the time they are to spend on their other 
responsibilities, including training. It further communicated that a 
proper role for the QA/T is to help the Asylum Office Director monitor 
the quality assurance of each supervisory asylum officer. According to 
the Chief of the Training, Research, and Quality Branch, QA/Ts are to 
look for ways to improve the quality of each office's adjudications and 
identify training needs. Furthermore, the Chief stated that each office 
is to develop its own QA/T performance work plan and decide how many 
cases a QA/T should review for quality, including how to select cases 
for review. 

As a result of the discretion given to Asylum Offices, expectations for 
QA/T reviews of a sample of decisions varied among Asylum Offices. QA/ 
T performance work plans either included the expectation that QA/Ts 
evaluate the quality and consistency of written decisions, or note 
procedural or technical errors and deficiencies.[Footnote 37] QA/T 
reviews of a sample of decisions were routinely conducted in five of 
the eight offices, according to Asylum Office Directors and QA/Ts. For 
example, we were told that in one office, QA/Ts randomly reviewed 2 to 
3 decisions each week; in another office, the QA/T randomly reviewed 12 
cases each week; and in a third office, the QA/T reviewed all decisions 
that had been reviewed by a supervisor on 1 day every 2 weeks, focusing 
on a particular aspect of the decision. According to two QA/Ts, the 
deficiencies they most frequently identified involved asylum officers' 
credibility assessments. For example, one explained that asylum 
officers were not being sufficiently rigorous in pursuing applicants' 
credibility. Although both QA/Ts said their reviews usually revealed 
minor deficiencies, one noted that egregious problems did occasionally 
surface, such as a decision that is not consistent with the latest case 
law. In three offices QA/T reviews were not being done routinely. In 
two of these offices, competing work demands reportedly precluded QA/Ts 
from performing quality reviews or limited their frequency. For 
example, in one office, the QA/T was expected to evaluate an average of 
five or more decisions each week for quality and consistency to receive 
the highest rating in the related performance element. However, the 
Director of that office indicated the QA/T had been unable to meet that 
expectation because of the time demands of other responsibilities 
involving reviewing sensitive cases and training-related tasks. The 
Asylum Office Director of the third office told us in August 2007 of 
plans for that office to establish a process for the QA/T to randomly 
review two to four decisions each week. Although this Director informed 
us in August 2008 that the QA/T had begun conducting these reviews, the 
Director stated the position had become vacant during the past year and 
thus local quality assurance reviews were not taking place. In 
addition, in six of the eight offices, including two that we visited, 
performance work plans included local expectations that QA/Ts observe 
and evaluate asylum officer interviews.[Footnote 38] However, in all 
three offices we visited, the QA/Ts told us they did not observe or 
evaluate asylum officer interviews, or did so only on occasion, because 
of other work demands. Therefore, the Asylum Division's quality review 
framework was not being fully implemented in all the offices. 
Implementing the quality review framework would better position the 
Asylum Division to examine the root causes of deficiencies and take 
corrective action, such as addressing deficiencies through training. 

A recent study of asylum adjudications by Georgetown University 
researchers[Footnote 39] found that there was considerable variability 
among individual adjudicators in Asylum Offices as well as in the 
immigration courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeals.[Footnote 40] Asylum 
Office Directors generally agreed that grant rates can legitimately 
vary among officers in one office as well as across offices. 
Nevertheless, four either expressed concern about inconsistencies that 
result from differences among some asylum officers or supervisory 
asylum officers in their office or said that headquarters should be 
doing more to improve the consistency of asylum decisions or review the 
quality of work. According to the Asylum Division's Deputy Chief, 
headquarters does not monitor asylum officers' grant rates or decision 
patterns, which would provide some information regarding consistency in 
asylum decisions, in part because it does not want to suggest that 
there is a particular grant rate that is correct or desirable. Further, 
we asked six Asylum Office Directors if they monitored the grant rates 
of asylum officers in their offices and five said they did not. The 
Asylum Division is considering developing a training course for QA/Ts 
and creating a new senior asylum officer position that, among other 
things, would have the authority to assess the consistency of 
supervisory decisions. 

Headquarters quality review. To help ensure consistency in novel or 
complex areas of the law, the Asylum Division reviews all asylum cases 
categorized as "sensitive" before an asylum decision is issued. Local 
Asylum Offices are required to submit certain categories, established 
by headquarters, of sensitive cases to the Asylum Division's Training, 
Research, and Quality Branch in headquarters for quality review. 
Sensitive cases include, for example, those involving issues related to 
national security, applicants involved in persecutor or human rights 
violations, diplomats or other high-level government or military 
officials or family members, and principal applicants who are under 18 
years of age. 

In fiscal year 2007, Asylum Offices sent the Asylum Division 384 of 
these sensitive asylum cases for review, of which 28 percent were 
designated as national security cases. National security cases include 
cases in which the applicant may be a persecutor, terrorist, or risk to 
the security of the United States. In the previous fiscal year, Asylum 
Offices sent 263 such cases to the Asylum Division for review, of which 
41 percent were considered national security cases. Asylum Division 
data indicate that, in fiscal year 2007, headquarters concurred with 86 
percent of the decisions asylum officers made and, in fiscal year 2006, 
it concurred with 83 percent of asylum officers' decisions. The data 
further indicate that when the Asylum Division did not concur, it 
generally required that the applicant be interviewed again or the 
written decision be modified, and that the decision then be resubmitted 
to headquarters for further review. 

Majority of Immigration Judges Reported Needing Additional Training; 
EOIR Expanded Training for New Immigration Judges and Solicited Input 
on Training Needs: 

Although the majority of immigration judges reported that EOIR's 
training for newly hired immigration judges and annual training 
enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, the majority 
reported needing additional training in several areas, including 
identifying fraud. EOIR expanded its training program primarily for new 
immigration judges in 2006 and annually solicits input from immigration 
judges on their training needs. 

Since 1997, EOIR has sent newly hired immigration judges to a week-long 
training at the National Judicial College, which includes courses on 
immigration court procedures, immigration law, ethics, caseload 
management, and stress management. The training is delivered in a 
workshop format and incorporates lecture instruction, small-group 
exercises, and court-hearing demonstrations. Of the 67 immigration 
judges who came on board since 1997 and responded to our question about 
this training, 66 percent reported that the National Judicial College 
moderately or greatly enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum 
cases.: 

In addition to the new immigration judge training program, EOIR also 
holds an annual conference for all immigration judges. This conference 
is generally a week-long training that includes lectures and 
presentations. During the 2007 conference, topics covered included 
immigration law and procedure, ethics, religious freedom, disparities 
in asylum adjudications and forensic analysis. Eighty percent of 
immigration judges who responded to our survey reported that attending 
the annual conference in person either moderately or greatly enhanced 
their ability to adjudicate asylum cases. Although immigration judges 
generally attend this conference in person, the in-person conference 
was canceled in fiscal years 2003 through 2005 and again in 2008 
because of budget constraints. In its place, a virtual conference was 
held in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and included recorded presentations 
in place of the in-person conference. EOIR officials told us that 
because of budget constraints, a virtual conference was also offered in 
August 2008. The virtual conference included interactive computer-based 
training addressing asylum issues before the courts and a multimedia 
presentation that emphasizes the importance and effect of immigration 
judge asylum decisions. Fifteen percent of immigration judges reported 
that a virtual conference moderately or greatly enhanced their ability 
to adjudicate asylum cases. 

Although the majority of immigration judges who responded to our survey 
reported that EOIR's new hire training and in-person annual conference 
enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, as shown in figure 
4, the majority of immigration judges also reported needing additional 
training in certain areas. Seventy-six percent reported moderately or 
greatly needing additional continuing education on asylum issues, 74 
percent reported that additional training on identifying fraud was 
moderately or greatly needed, 59 percent reported additional training 
on assessing credibility was moderately or greatly needed, and 55 
percent reported that additional training on U.S. asylum law was 
moderately or greatly needed to enhance their ability to adjudicate 
asylum cases. National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) 
representatives we interviewed, who also serve as immigration judges, 
stated that immigration judges could benefit if time were allotted each 
week for self-study and they received more training on assessing 
credibility. 

Figure 4: Immigration Judge Survey Respondents' Views on Topics for 
Which They Reported a Moderate or Great Need for Additional Training: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data: 

Training topic: Continuing education on asylum issues; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 75.6. 

Training topic: Identifying fraud; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 73.7. 

Training topic: Assessing credibility; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 58.7. 

Training topic: U.S. asylum law; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 54.8. 

Training topic: Rendering oral decisions; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 31.4; 

Training topic: Time management; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 29.7; 

Training topic: Sensitivity and cultural awareness; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 27.4. 

Training topic: Rendering a written decision; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 22.7. 

Training topic: One-year rule; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 16.6. 

Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the 
survey items. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[End of figure] 

Beyond these specific training topics, immigration judges who responded 
to our survey also identified the need for other professional 
development opportunities to enhance their ability to adjudicate asylum 
cases. For example, 75 percent of immigration judges reported that 
informal meetings with other immigration judges were moderately or 
greatly needed. NAIJ representatives stated that EOIR's training 
program lacks opportunities for immigration judges to meet and 
communicate with other immigration judges in their same circuit and 
that a circuit-specific regional conference, offered quarterly, would 
address this need. Other forms of training that many immigration judge 
survey respondents thought were moderately or greatly needed included 
opportunities to be detailed to the BIA (62 percent) and attending 
intergovernmental agency conferences (55 percent). With respect to 
opportunities for immigration judges to be detailed to the BIA, 
according to EOIR, two immigration judges were serving on the BIA as of 
August 2007.[Footnote 41] 

EOIR implemented several changes to its training program in response to 
reforms directed by the Attorney General in 2006[Footnote 42] and in 
alignment with EOIR's 2005-2010 Strategic Plan to prioritize training 
for EOIR adjudicators, which was issued in 2004. In September 2006, 
EOIR expanded its training for newly hired immigration judges by 
requiring an additional week of courses. It also extended the time 
newly hired immigration judges observed hearings from 1 week to 4 
weeks. These changes were implemented after most of the immigration 
judges in our survey population would have received new hire 
training.[Footnote 43] Sixty-three percent of those responding to our 
survey reported that observing hearings conducted by other immigration 
judges moderately or greatly enhanced their ability to adjudicate 
asylum cases. 

EOIR also recognizes that new developments in immigration law 
necessitate that immigration judges receive timely, current, circuit- 
specific legal updates. As such, it distributes case summaries on a 
weekly basis and, in response to reforms directed by the Attorney 
General in 2006, launched a monthly publication that provides a more in-
depth analysis of legal issues, case law, and statutory and regulatory 
developments. According to EOIR, although it has neither the time nor 
the funds to expand immigration judges' opportunities to interact with 
each other outside their court locations, it thinks it would be of 
immense value. Lacking the opportunity in fiscal year 2008 for such 
interactions through an immigration judge conference and having 
received feedback that immigration judges would like to observe another 
immigration judge, EOIR is structuring opportunities for peer court 
observation to take place within each immigration judge's court. 
[Footnote 42] 

EOIR's 2005-2010 Strategic Plan calls for EOIR to annually identify 
training needs for all immigration court staff and, as such, EOIR uses 
a structured questionnaire to solicit immigration judges' training 
needs at both the new immigration judge training and the immigration 
judges' annual training conference. According to EOIR, it receives 
continuous training recommendations from immigration judges in the 
field, NAIJ, the Immigration Judges Advisory Committee, and new 
immigration judges' training faculty. Further, Assistant Chief 
Immigration Judges may observe immigration court proceedings to 
determine whether immigration judges need additional training. 
[Footnote 43] However, according to EOIR, budget cuts resulted in 
reductions in spending in fiscal year 2008, including canceling planned 
conferences and curtailing training. 

BIA Reviews Immigration Judge Decisions That Are Appealed: 

According to EOIR, another means of providing quality assurance resides 
in its formal appeals board, the BIA. The BIA is the highest 
administrative body for immigration issues and is responsible for 
applying immigration and nationality laws uniformly throughout the 
United States. Unlike asylum officers' decisions, all of which are 
reviewed by supervisors, the BIA reviews decisions when DHS or the 
asylum applicant appeals a decision. In addition, according to EOIR, 
when a decision is appealed to the BIA, a transcript of the decision is 
sent to the immigration judge's Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who 
may review any or all of the transcribed decisions for quality 
assurance. Overall, 10 percent of all immigration judges' decisions, 
which include asylum decisions, were appealed to the BIA in fiscal year 
2007. 

Challenges in Assessing the Authenticity of Claims and Time Constraints 
Are Key Factors Affecting Asylum Officers' Adjudications: 

Asylum officers reported difficulties in assessing the authenticity of 
asylum claims, despite mechanisms USCIS designed to help asylum 
officers assess claims, and also reported time constraints in 
adjudicating cases. Mechanisms USCIS designed included, for example, 
identity and security checks and fraud prevention teams. Federal 
entities outside USCIS's Asylum Division and FDNS also have a role in 
combating fraud and confirming the validity of claims, but their 
ability to provide assistance to asylum officers has been hindered due 
to a lack of resources, competing priorities and, in some cases, 
confidentiality requirements intended to protect asylum applicants and 
their families. In addition, asylum officers and supervisors reported 
that asylum officers do not have sufficient time to adjudicate cases in 
a manner consistent with their procedures manual and training, although 
management's views were mixed. Furthermore, the Asylum Division 
established the productivity standard for asylum officers without the 
benefit of empirical data. 

Asylum Officers Reported Difficulties Assessing the Authenticity of 
Claims Despite USCIS Mechanisms and Assistance from Other Federal 
Agencies: 

Asylum Officers Reported Facing Challenges Assessing the Authenticity 
of Claims: 

Asylum officers face challenges in assessing the authenticity of 
claims--that is, identifying fraud and assessing credibility. The very 
nature of the asylum system, which does not require applicants to 
submit documentation to support their claim, presents a challenge. 
Furthermore, economic incentives and benefits that accompany asylum can 
make the system a target of fraud. Abuse of the asylum system by 
particular groups has been reported in the past. For example, in 1999, 
a large-scale federal investigation began that resulted in the 
prosecution and conviction in 2005 of 23 individuals, including 
immigration brokers and consultants who aided thousands of Indonesian 
immigrants living in the United States in fraudulently applying for 
government benefits, including asylum.[Footnote 46] In a 2006 document 
prepared by FDNS staff at a USCIS service center, a particular 
nationality was identified as using fraudulent documents for the 
purpose of applying for asylum and establishing residency in the United 
States. According to the report, "the issues identified...constitute 
widespread abuse of the asylum system" by applicants from that country. 

In responding to our survey, many asylum officers reported difficulties 
carrying out their fraud-related responsibilities and, as discussed 
earlier in this report, many reported needing more or better fraud- 
related training. According to the Asylum Division, asylum officers 
must consider whether fraud exists in the applicant's claim, identity 
documents, or other documents provided to support the claim. Asylum 
applicants' use of a fraudulent document does not necessarily 
constitute fraud in their overall claim. Even after identifying fraud, 
asylum officers must determine if the fraud was made knowingly to 
obtain an immigration benefit for which the applicant was not entitled. 
[Footnote 45] As shown in figure 5, asylum officers who responded to 
our survey most frequently (73 percent) identified document fraud as 
moderately or very difficult for them to identify. In September 2007, 
we reported that the ease with which individuals can obtain genuine 
identity documents for an assumed identity creates a vulnerability that 
terrorists can exploit to enter the United States with legal status. 
[Footnote 48] 

Figure 5: Types of Fraud That Asylum Officer Survey Respondents 
Reported as Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data: 

Type of fraud: Document fraud; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 73. 

Type of fraud: Attorney fraud; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 53. 

Type of fraud: Identity fraud; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 49. 

Type of fraud: Preparer fraud; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 45. 

Type of fraud: Fraud related to date or method of entry; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 44. 

Type of fraud: Jurisdictional fraud; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 44. 

Type of fraud: Fraud in the claim; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 38. 

Type of fraud: Interpreter fraud; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 25. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the 
survey items. 

[End of figure] 

The figure also shows that about half of asylum officer survey 
respondents identified attorney fraud (53 percent) and identity fraud 
(49 percent) as moderately or very difficult for them to identify. 
According to Asylum Division data for fiscal year 2007, 38 percent of 
the applicants brought an attorney with them to their asylum interview; 
in fiscal year 2006, 30 percent did so. An unscrupulous attorney might 
prepare false asylum applications, including supporting affidavits and 
documents, which may be difficult to identify. For example, in February 
2008, an attorney was indicted for preparing fraudulent asylum 
applications that included false documents with forged notary stamps 
and signatures. With respect to identity fraud, asylum officers we 
interviewed explained that the identity of an applicant is sometimes 
hard to determine and applicants may falsely claim to be from one 
country where persecution is known to occur, yet really be from another 
country in that region. 

In addition to identifying fraud, assessing credibility poses a 
challenge to asylum officers in making asylum decisions. As previously 
discussed in this report, asylum officers must make a credibility 
assessment regarding every applicant they interview. As shown in figure 
6, the majority of asylum officers who responded to our survey reported 
significant challenges to assessing credibility in about half or more 
of the cases they adjudicated in the past year, including insufficient 
time to prepare and conduct research prior to the interview (73 
percent), insufficient time to conduct the interview (63 percent), the 
lack of information regarding document validity (61 percent), the lack 
of overseas information on applicants (59 percent), and the lack of 
documents provided by applicants (54 percent). According to the Asylum 
Division, given the preponderance of evidence standard, it is possible 
to have reasonable doubts about whether applicants meet the definition 
of a refugee and still correctly find that applicants met their burden 
of establishing that their claim is true.: 

Figure 6: Percentage of Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Who Reported 
Significant Challenges to Assessing Credibility in about Half or More 
of the Asylum Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data: 

Type of challenge: Insufficient time to prepare and conduct research 
prior to review; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 73. 

Type of challenge: Insufficient time to probe in interview; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 63. 	 

Type of challenge: Lack of information on document validity; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 61. 

Type of challenge: Lack of overseas information on applicants; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 59. 

Type of challenge: Lack of documents provided by applicant; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 54. 

Type of challenge: My own inability to speak applicant's language; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 19. 

Type of challenge: Lack of information on country conditions; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 15. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the 
survey items. 

[End of figure] 

Supervisory asylum officers also reported difficulties in carrying out 
their fraud-related responsibilities. Supervisors are responsible for 
identifying possible fraud trends as they review asylum cases from 
multiple asylum officers and can identify patterns individual asylum 
officers may not observe. Nevertheless, in responding to our survey, 54 
percent of supervisors (21 of 39) reported it moderately or very 
difficult to identify emerging trends in fraud in the time they have 
available. 

While asylum fraud presents a challenge to officers, its full extent is 
not known and is being systematically assessed for the first time. In 
March 2005, FDNS undertook an Asylum Benefit Fraud Assessment because, 
according to FDNS, asylum was a benefit program historically considered 
to be one of USCIS's most fraud-prone or high-risk programs[Footnote 
49] and reliable and comprehensive information about the types and 
prevalence of fraud in asylum applications was not available. The 
assessment randomly sampled 239 affirmative asylum applications filed 
during a 6-month period in 2005 that were either issued a final 
decision or placed on hold. FDNS Immigration Officers (FDNS-IO) were 
required to conduct a series of identity and security checks, some of 
which were mandatory at the time of adjudication, as well as additional 
checks and research. The FDNS-IOs also requested overseas document 
verification when they believed relevant information that would 
substantiate a fraud finding could be obtained. However, according to 
FDNS officials, as of July 2008, FDNS had not received a response on 
almost half of the 72 documents it sent overseas for verification. 
Other factors can also make it difficult to assess the full extent of 
asylum fraud. As FDNS officials explained, an asylee's petition for 
overseas relatives to join the asylee in the United States--a process 
that can take years--can reveal that the stories of persecution an 
asylee presented when applying for asylum are not always consistent 
with information later provided by his or her relatives. The Director 
of Fraud Prevention Programs in State's Bureau of Consular Affairs 
confirmed that the petition process has uncovered information that 
clearly demonstrated that the principal applicant's asylum claim was 
fraudulent, including cases where personnel reached this conclusion 
after interviewing relatives or conducting investigations. As of July 
2008, FDNS had not finalized the Asylum Benefit Fraud Assessment and 
had not decided whether to do so without information from approximately 
10 asylum termination interviews to be completed as a result of 
information obtained during the Asylum Benefit Fraud Assessment. 
[Footnote 50] 

USCIS Designed Mechanisms to Help Asylum Officers Assess the 
Authenticity of Claims: 

In April 2005, the Asylum Division conducted a review of past cases in 
which asylum applicants had alleged ties with terrorists or engaged in 
terrorist activity, although ties may not have been known at the time 
of adjudication. As a result, it identified vulnerabilities to 
terrorism in the U.S. asylum system and found that many of the 
vulnerabilities it identified were resolved with the 1995 asylum 
reforms.[Footnote 51] However, the report also identified 
vulnerabilities that remained postreform, including the lack of checks 
to identify individuals, the possibility of an applicant's interpreter 
perpetrating fraud, and vulnerabilities outside of its control. 
[Footnote 52] According to information the Asylum Division provided, it 
has since taken steps to address vulnerabilities within its control. 
Some of these, and other mechanisms it has designed, can help asylum 
officers identify fraud and assess credibility--specifically, identity 
and security check requirements, fraud prevention teams with anti-fraud 
responsibilities, monitoring applicants' interpreters during asylum 
interviews, and tracking preparers suspected of fraud. However, because 
the extent of asylum fraud and how it has changed over time is not 
known, it is difficult to assess the effect of these measures on the 
identification of fraud. Furthermore, it is difficult to know the 
extent to which any of these measures have deterred fraud. 

Identity and security checks. Security check requirements have 
increased, particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
and asylum staff at all levels viewed them as helping ensure the 
integrity of asylum decisions. Asylum officers are required to ensure 
multiple identity and security checks are conducted to confirm an 
applicant's identity, identify applicants who pose a national security 
or public safety risk, and resolve certain eligibility issues. Asylum 
officers must confirm that all checks are initiated prior to issuing a 
decision and obtain cleared results of checks before issuing a grant of 
asylum.[Footnote 53] 

Some identity and security checks are automatically initiated 
immediately after an applicant files an asylum application at the USCIS 
Service Center,[Footnote 54] however, many are initiated and completed 
during the adjudication process. According to Asylum Office Directors, 
in six of the eight Asylum Offices, asylum officers conduct the 
required identity and security checks for the cases they adjudicate. In 
the remaining two offices, asylum officers are designated, on a 
rotational basis, to conduct identity and security checks for all 
asylum officers in the office; however, each asylum officer must still 
review the results of these checks for each case he or she is assigned. 
Each supervisor must confirm that documentation of the security checks 
is accurately completed in accordance with the decision being issued 
before signing off on the decision. 

The Asylum Division has worked with other federal entities to provide 
asylum officers with access to databases to conduct identity and 
security checks and expanded and implemented new identity and security 
check requirements on existing checks. Some of these checks are 
required for all USCIS adjudications; others are required only in an 
asylum adjudication. Since that time, the Asylum Division has required 
asylum officers to check the following databases: 

* Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS). IBIS is a multi-agency 
database aimed at improving border enforcement and facilitating 
inspections of applicants for admission into the United States by 
identifying threats to national security or public safety. The database 
interfaces with another system that includes law enforcement data, 
including information on immigration law violators, individuals with a 
criminal history or who are subject to criminal investigations, or 
suspected terrorists. 

* U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT). In 
2004, the Asylum Division and the Department of Homeland Security's US- 
VISIT office worked together to develop a mechanism to provide asylum 
officers with access to the US-VISIT database through a web-based 
interface tool, US-VISIT SIT. US-VISIT collects, maintains, and shares 
biometric and other information on certain foreign nationals entering 
and exiting the United States. This tool allows asylum officers to 
ensure that the applicant is not identified by US-VISIT as a national 
security or public safety threat and that the applicant who appears for 
the interview is the same individual who appeared earlier for 
fingerprinting. 

* State's Consular Consolidated Database (CCD). The Asylum Division 
worked with State to provide asylum officers with access to information 
in the CCD, which contains records about visa applications. The 
database may contain biometric data and copies of information an 
applicant presented to a State Consular Officer when applying for the 
visa. Such data may be valuable to asylum officers in providing 
information about the identity, previous travel history, method of 
entry into the United States, or background of an asylum applicant. 

The Asylum Division has also made several changes expanding the 
requirements for several existing identity and security checks, 
including the following: 

* Since February 2003, asylum officers have been required to check the 
name of every asylum applicant against the Deportable Alien Control 
System (DACS) prior to adjudicating an asylum case in addition to when 
the asylum application was filed.[Footnote 55] DACS contains records of 
individuals who have been detained by ICE or placed in removal 
proceedings. Prior to 2003, asylum officers completed this check when 
the asylum application was filed and repeated the check only for cases 
resulting in a grant of asylum. 

* Since November 2006, asylum officers have been required to verify 
that every asylum applicant aged 14 to 75 has been fingerprinted prior 
to the asylum interview in addition to obtaining fingerprint results 
prior to issuing a grant of asylum.[Footnote 56] This gives the asylum 
officer the opportunity to review any available information associated 
with the applicant's fingerprint records prior to or at the time of the 
interview. The asylum officer must reschedule the interview if an 
applicant has failed to be fingerprinted in advance. Prior to this 
change, the requirement called only for asylum officers to obtain 
fingerprint results in cases that resulted in a grant of asylum. 

* When an asylum application is filed, RAPS automatically requests an 
FBI name check for every applicant aged 14 to 79. Since 2002, asylum 
officers have been required to obtain the results of the FBI name check 
before granting asylum. Prior to 2002, this check was initiated at the 
time an applicant filed an asylum application, but obtaining a result 
was not necessary before issuing a grant. Since 2005, RAPS has 
automatically initiated FBI name checks on aliases, maiden names, and 
alternate dates of birth.[Footnote 57] 

Seventy-eight percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey 
reported that, overall, they found that identity and security checks 
were moderately or very useful in identifying or providing information 
on individuals who pose a risk to national security or public safety. 
Moreover, as figure 7 shows, the majority found each of the required 
identity and security checks to be moderately or very useful. However, 
as noted by an asylum officer we interviewed, applicants who enter the 
United States without inspection or who use a false identity are less 
likely to be identified by these checks. 

Figure 7: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Viewed as 
Moderately or Very Useful in Providing Information on Individuals Who 
Pose a Risk to National Security or Public Safety: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data: 

Type of security check: FBI fingerprints; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 89. 

Type of security check: IBIS; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 87. 

Type of security check: US-VISIT; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 79. 

Type of security check: CCD; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 76. 

Type of security check: DACS; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 60. 

Type of security check: CIS[A]; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 60. 

Type of security check: FBI name check; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 58. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the 
survey items. 

[A] The Central Index System (CIS) is a database maintained by USCIS 
that captures biographic and historical information on the status of 
applicants seeking immigration benefits and other individuals subject 
to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and tracks 
the location of case files. 

[End of figure] 

According to the Asylum Division, checking applicants in the US-VISIT 
system had significantly mitigated existing vulnerabilities in the 
program by locking in an applicant's identity through fingerprint and 
photograph at the earliest point possible in the application process 
and searching against other biometric databases to confirm an 
applicant's identity and identify potential derogatory information. The 
Asylum Division further noted that, while the US-VISIT system is vast, 
it is not an exhaustive warehouse of biometric prints obtained by all 
U.S. government agencies or by other governments. According to an 
Asylum Office Director, between fingerprints, FBI name checks, IBIS, US-
VISIT, and CCD, it would be reasonable to expect that a national 
security risk would be identified if such information were contained in 
one of the security databases. 

In addition, 72 percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey 
reported that, overall, they found identity and security checks to be 
moderately or very useful in providing information regarding an 
applicant's eligibility for asylum. At least half of the respondents 
found each of the required checks to be useful for this purpose, as 
shown in figure 8. 

Figure 8: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Viewed as 
Moderately or Very Useful in Providing Information on an Applicant's 
Eligibility for Asylum: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data: 

Type of security check: CCD 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 84. 

Type of security check: US-VISIT; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 79. 

Type of security check: IBIS; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 74. 

Type of security check: FBI fingerprints; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 72. 

Type of security check: DACS; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 66. 

Type of security check: CIS[A]; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 63. 

Type of security check: FBI name check; 
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 53. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the 
survey items. 

[A] The Central Index System (CIS) is a database maintained by USCIS 
that captures biographic and historical information on the status of 
applicants seeking immigration benefits and other individuals subject 
to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and tracks 
the location of case files. 

[End of figure] 

Fraud-prevention teams. Asylum Offices have fraud-prevention teams 
comprised of at least one FDNS immigration officer (FDNS-IO) and one 
Fraud Prevention Coordinator (FPC) who are tasked with anti-fraud 
responsibilities. USCIS assigned responsibilities to FDNS-IOs at Asylum 
Offices that included tracking fraud patterns for FDNS, apprising 
Asylum Offices of fraud trends, resolving national security "hits," 
addressing fraud-related leads provided by asylum officers, liaising 
with law enforcement entities, and referring cases of suspected fraud 
to ICE. FDNS-IOs are precluded from performing routine functions 
associated with the adjudication process, such as the resolution of non-
national-security-related background checks or the review of suspect 
documents. The work of FDNS-IOs is directed by local Asylum Office 
management and by FDNS headquarters. As of July 2008, a total of 14 
FDNS-IOs were located in Asylum Offices and, according to Asylum 
Division staff, additional positions may be authorized in the future. 
In addition, each Asylum Office has at least one FPC, usually a 
supervisory asylum officer with additional fraud-related 
responsibilities as a collateral duty. Duties vary and are directed by 
local office management. FPCs may work closely with FDNS-IOs but, in 
contrast to FDNS-IOs, FPCs have a direct role in supporting asylum 
officers in their adjudication decisions. According to an official in 
the Asylum Division's Operations Branch, FPCs may also review fraud 
referrals that asylum officers make to the FDNS-IOs to ensure quality 
and determine fraud trends. 

The specific tasks performed by anti-fraud staff and who performs them 
varied across offices. For example, either a FDNS-IO or a FPC might 
prescreen applications for fraud indicators, coordinate requests for 
document verification or overseas information, track interpreters or 
preparers suspected of fraud, communicate fraud trends to asylum 
officers, review national security "hits," participate in or 
communicate with interagency task forces, or provide fraud-related 
training to office staff. 

Interpreter monitors. In an effort to combat the Asylum Division's 
concern regarding fraud and quality of interpretation among some of the 
interpreters that non-English speaking applicants are required to bring 
to their interview, the Asylum Division began phasing in the use of 
contracted telephonic interpreter monitors in the first half of 2006. 
According to the Asylum Division's 2003 report on its interpreter 
monitoring pilot program, investigations revealed that interpreters 
were engaging in fraudulent behavior, such as altering asylum 
applicants' testimony and coaching applicants during interviews. In May 
2006, the Asylum Division reported that the interpreter monitoring 
contractor had been unable to accommodate 11 to 13 percent of requests 
for interpreter monitors in March and April 2006, and thus did not meet 
its goal to provide monitors 90 percent of the time. The interpreter 
monitoring program was intended as an interim step in combating 
interpreter fraud and ensuring accurate interpretation in the 
interview. USCIS plans to issue a rule that would require the Asylum 
Division to provide professional interpreters. According to Asylum 
Division officials, the Asylum Division has prepared a request for a 
multiple-award contract for interpreter services and expects to have 
the contract in place by the end of September 2008. As such, it would 
curtail its approach of monitoring applicants' interpreters. 

Nevertheless, asylum staff indicated that interpreter monitors have 
improved the interviewing process and helped combat fraud. After an 
initial assessment of the interim project in May 2006, the Asylum 
Division concluded that monitors were successful in assisting asylum 
officers in obtaining information from applicants and deterring 
fraudulent interpreters, although the deterrent effect could not be 
quantified. Asylum officers who responded to our survey also viewed 
interpreter monitoring as successful in combating interpreter fraud and 
helping genuine refugees communicate their claim. Specifically, 87 
percent indicated that interpreter monitors were very or moderately 
useful in deterring interpreters from intentionally misinterpreting, 
while 55 percent reported that it is very or moderately easy to 
identify interpreter fraud when interpreter monitors are used. Eighty- 
two percent reported that interpreter monitors were very or moderately 
useful in helping genuine refugees clearly communicate their claim and 
avoid misunderstandings due to poor interpretation. 

Tracking preparers. To help identify applications completed by 
suspicious fraudulent preparers, in July 2007, the Asylum Division 
began systematically tracking information on the preparer of each 
asylum application. The Asylum Division noted the difficulties of 
addressing fraud perpetrated by preparers--that is, individuals who 
assist asylum applicants with the completion of their asylum 
applications. Preparers of fraudulent claims have been known to produce 
applications containing, for example, false claims of persecution and 
coach applicants on how to exploit the sympathies of asylum officers. 
The Asylum Division issued guidance in July 2007 that introduced new 
procedures to collect preparer information and instructed asylum 
officers to verify that USCIS Service Centers entered preparer 
information into RAPS. The guidance instructs asylum officers to gather 
information during the interview regarding the circumstances under 
which the application was prepared, including who prepared the 
application. According to the Asylum Division's Deputy Chief at the 
time of our review, the division anticipates this effort will allow the 
collection and analysis of data on preparers and could help identify 
applications prepared by preparers determined to be fraudulent. 

Other planned initiatives. The Asylum Division is also considering 
various other anti-fraud efforts that are in various stages of planning 
and have been highlighted as key initiatives for fiscal year 2008. 
These plans include working with the Department of Defense to develop a 
systematic way of processing fingerprints for asylum seekers through 
Department of Defense systems, using software to scan applications to 
identify common text and data, and furthering the exchange of 
information with Canada and other countries. With respect to exchanging 
information with Canada, for example, USCIS is exploring the 
feasibility of systematically exchanging with Canada information 
submitted by asylum seekers.[Footnote 58] 

Assistance from Other Federal Entities That Could Help Asylum Officers 
Assess the Authenticity of Claims Is Not Always Available: 

Federal entities outside the Asylum Division and FDNS also have a role 
in combating fraud and confirming the validity of claims, but their 
assistance to asylum officers has been hindered by a lack of resources, 
competing priorities, and--in some cases--confidentiality requirements 
intended to protect asylum applicants and their families. 

ICE's Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL). Although the majority of 
asylum officers who responded to our survey reported it was difficult 
for them to identify fraudulent documents, the ability of the federal 
government's forensic crime laboratory dedicated to detecting 
fraudulent documents to assist asylum officers has been hindered by 
competing priorities and a lack of exemplar documents--an authentic 
travel or identity document FDL uses to make comparisons in forensic 
examinations. Due to resource limitations, FDL prioritizes cases so 
that those in which the individual is detained receive highest priority 
and requests from asylum officers--those involving individuals with no 
set court date--are among those receiving the lowest priority. 
According to FDL data for fiscal year 2007, when FDL responded to 
requests from Asylum Offices and other entities with the same relative 
priority, it took an average of 122 days, with response times ranging 
from 1 to 487 days. Because the Asylum Division recognizes it is 
unlikely that FDL will respond to a document examination request before 
an adjudication decision must be made given asylum processing time 
requirements, asylum officers are instructed to submit documents to FDL 
if they or their supervisor believe that the analysis may change the 
outcome of the decision. 

In addition, according to FDL's Unit Chief, FDL often does not have the 
kinds of documents asylum seekers often submit to asylum officers to 
support their claims, such as overseas birth certificates, marriage 
certificates, or medical records. Recognizing that FDL's ability to 
verify certain types of documents is hindered by its lack of relevant 
exemplars, the Asylum Division requires each Asylum Office to have at 
least two FDL-trained staff to provide training to other officers, as 
discussed earlier in this report. In addition to assisting officers in 
identifying fraudulent documents, these staff are to advise officers on 
whether FDL is likely to have an exemplar for the document they want 
verified. 

State and USCIS overseas offices. State and USCIS overseas offices 
[Footnote 59] can play an important role in helping asylum officers 
distinguish between genuine and fraudulent claims by providing overseas 
information on asylum applicants and their claims. According to USCIS 
officials we interviewed, overseas investigations may be one of the 
best methods of verifying the facts alleged by applicants. A FDNS 
official further explained that far more fraud could be uncovered if 
more work were conducted overseas, and this is especially true for 
asylum cases. State and USCIS may be able to provide information on a 
particular asylum case by verifying or obtaining overseas documents, 
such as medical or employment records, by providing an assessment of 
the accuracy an applicant's assertion about country conditions or the 
applicant's situation, or by engaging in investigations.[Footnote 60] 

In our surveys we asked asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers 
about the usefulness of obtaining overseas medical and employment 
records, or verification of such records. Eighty-two percent of asylum 
officers and 90 percent of supervisory asylum officers (36 of 40) who 
responded thought that these records or verification of these records 
would be moderately or very useful in adjudicating cases. Several 
respondents explained that overseas information can help them verify 
accounts of medical treatment, encounters with police or military 
forces, or political affiliation that relate to an applicant's claim. 
Furthermore, about half the asylum officers indicated they needed, but 
did not have such information (53 percent for medical records; 49 
percent for employment records) in about half or more of the cases they 
adjudicated in the past year. Preliminary results of the Asylum Benefit 
Fraud Assessment further suggest the value of obtaining overseas 
information on asylum applications. USCIS reported preliminary data in 
January 2007 that indicated they received an overseas response for 13 
requests for document verification, of which 9 were found to support a 
finding that the asylum claim was fraudulent. USCIS's Refugee, Asylum, 
and International Operations Directorate, of which the Asylum Division 
is a component, proposed creating 54 new positions in fiscal year 2008, 
including positions in several overseas posts to be focused on fraud 
detection and national security. The fiscal year 2008 plan requires 
approval from State for the overseas positions. As of July 2008, State 
had approved most of them. According to the Asylum Division's Acting 
Deputy Chief, the increased capacity may enable increased assistance to 
asylum officers, although it is too early to determine to what degree. 

Despite adjudicators' views that overseas information can be useful, 
overseas offices' ability to respond to asylum officers' requests for 
assistance has been hindered due to competing priorities, resource 
constraints, and challenges associated with respecting the 
confidentiality of asylum applicants to avoid placing them or their 
relatives at a greater risk of harm. Recognizing demands on overseas 
resources, the Asylum Division instructs asylum officers to limit 
overseas requests to those cases where such information is essential to 
making a final asylum determination. According to State procedures, in 
answering requests for specific information on asylum cases, it 
generally gives priority to requests from immigration courts over 
requests from asylum officers, although it also gives priority to 
requests from Asylum Division headquarters regarding sensitive cases. A 
Deputy Director within State explained that requests from immigration 
courts are given higher priority because individuals appearing before 
an immigration judge face the possibility of deportation. 
Confidentiality requirements designed to protect applicants' safety can 
further constrain obtaining overseas information because making such 
inquiries of agencies of foreign governments can put asylum applicants 
or their families at risk by releasing information to the public or 
alleged persecutors. 

These limitations notwithstanding, USCIS and State have worked together 
to improve asylum officers' access to information regarding asylum 
applicants' visa applications. Since May 2006, asylum officers have had 
access to State's CCD. Because not all information included on the visa 
application is captured in CCD, the Asylum Division issued procedures 
in March 2007 on how asylum officers can request full visa application 
information from State if such additional information is material to 
the applicant's claim and can influence the adjudication decision. 
These procedures were disseminated close to the time we conducted our 
surveys. Ninety-one percent of asylum officers and 93 percent of 
supervisory asylum officers (37 of 40) who responded thought that 
having the entire visa application in addition to what is available in 
CCD would be moderately or very useful in adjudicating cases. Fifty- 
five percent of asylum officers said they needed, but did not have, the 
entire visa application in about half or more of the cases they 
adjudicated in the past year. 

The process for requesting overseas information on asylum applicants, 
other than visa applications, varies among Asylum Offices, and USCIS 
and State have been working on improving procedures for making these 
requests. According to Asylum Division officials, asylum officers are 
to consult their supervisors when they desire overseas assistance. 
However, the process for initiating requests for overseas information-
-that is, whether requests are made through FDNS or Asylum personnel-- 
varies among Asylum Offices. Seventy-four percent of asylum officers 
and 43 percent of supervisors (16 of 37) said they did not understand 
or had no more than a slight understanding of the process their office 
used for requesting overseas verification services. In June 2008, the 
Asylum Division's Acting Deputy Chief told us that USCIS and State were 
in the process of developing procedures that streamline the current 
process for requesting overseas assistance. According to an Operations 
Branch official, once the procedures are updated, the Asylum Division 
plans to provide training on the new procedures. 

ICE's Office of Investigations. USCIS and ICE have an agreement that 
USCIS will refer articulated suspicions of fraud to ICE, which will 
make a decision whether to accept or decline a case for investigation 
within 60 days. If ICE declines a case or does not respond within that 
time, the FDNS-IO is responsible for taking further action.[Footnote 
61] According to the Chief of FDNS, ICE declines about two-thirds of 
FDNS's requests for investigation. FDNS data showed that of the 58 
requests that FDNS-IOs at Asylum Offices sent to ICE for investigation 
during fiscal year 2007, ICE had declined 33, accepted 12, and had not 
made a decision to accept or decline 13 requests as of July 2008. 
According to the Acting Chief of ICE's Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit, 
ICE data showed that in fiscal year 2007, ICE opened 128 asylum fraud 
investigations, 70 of which were based on USCIS referrals. ICE 
investigations of asylum fraud can result from fraud referrals made by 
confidential informants, federal and local law enforcement personnel, 
as well as USCIS personnel. USCIS referrals can include those from 
asylum officers, FDNS-IOs, or district examiners. However, officials 
from the Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit explained it is difficult for 
ICE to identify the exact number of asylum fraud investigations because 
of the way a case may be recorded. Cases involving asylum fraud often 
involve other types of fraud, such as identity or marriage fraud, and 
may be recorded under a category relating to other fraud found in the 
investigation. Furthermore, a single conviction may involve an 
individual who was associated with numerous sham asylum applications. 

According to ICE officials, resource constraints preclude ICE from 
investigating all fraud referrals. Asylum fraud is difficult to 
investigate and resource-intensive because asylum claims often lack 
supporting evidence to facilitate investigations, according to the 
Acting Chief of ICE's Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit. These 
investigations can take several years to complete. According to ICE, 
its investigations of asylum fraud most often target larger-scale 
conspiracies, and individual applicants are given a lower priority. ICE 
also gives asylum cases special attention when asylum applicants from 
certain countries might pose a threat to national security.[Footnote 
62] 

Asylum Division personnel and Asylum Office fraud staff view ICE 
investigations of asylum fraud as a critical component in combating 
asylum fraud and, along with prosecutions, the best way to deter it. At 
one Asylum Office we visited, the Director stated that she believed 
prior local ICE activity had deterred fraudulent asylum applications. 
Furthermore, 42 percent of 107 asylum officers and 45 percent of 33 
supervisory asylum officers who provided survey comments regarding what 
can be done to deter or cut down on asylum fraud shared views that 
actions such as investigating, prosecuting, or assigning penalties are 
needed to help deter fraud. In March 2006, we reported that taking 
appropriate and consistent actions against immigration benefit 
violators is an important element of fraud control and deterrence. 
[Footnote 63] 

Representatives from these and other federal entities outside USCIS 
participated in the Asylum Division's Fraud Prevention Conference in 
December 2007, where conference leaders acknowledged that combating 
fraud requires both intra-and intergovernmental efforts. They further 
stressed the importance of finding administrative solutions to fraud, 
as prosecutions of asylum fraud are infrequent. The conference provided 
a forum for fraud detection and prevention personnel, investigators, 
attorneys, and personnel from USCIS, ICE, DOJ, and State to share 
information on current fraud trends, including specifics on suspected 
preparers who assisted, recruited, and sometimes duped clients to make 
fraudulent claims; methods used to make fraudulent claims; and 
indicators used to detect fraud. 

Asylum Officers Report Time Constraints Affect Adjudications; 
Adjudication Requirements Have Increased While the Productivity 
Standard Is Unchanged: 

Asylum Officers and Supervisors Report Asylum Officers Have 
Insufficient Time to Thoroughly Adjudicate Cases, but Management Views 
Are Mixed: 

The majority of asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers who 
responded to our survey reported that the 4 hours, on average, they 
have to complete an asylum case is insufficient to be thorough--that 
is, to complete the case in a manner consistent with their procedures 
manual and training--although views among managers varied. The 4-hour 
average is based on the productivity standard, which requires 
management to assign asylum officers work equivalent to 18 asylum cases 
in a 2-week period, allowing for 4 hours of training each week. The 
productivity standard is one of the elements in the asylum officers' 
performance work plan that is used to rate an asylum officer's 
performance. As table 2 shows, 28 percent of asylum officers and 28 
percent of supervisory asylum officers (11 of 40) reported that asylum 
officers need about 4 hours or less to complete an asylum case. 
However, 65 percent of asylum officers and 73 percent of supervisors 
(29 of 40) reported that asylum officers needed more than the standard 
4 hours to complete a case.[Footnote 61] 

Table 2: Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey 
Respondents' Views on the Time Asylum Officers Need to Complete an 
Asylum Case: 

Estimated hours needed to complete asylum cases: About 4 hours or less; 
Percentage of asylum officers: 28; 
Percentage of supervisory asylum officers: 28. 

Estimated hours needed to complete asylum cases: About 5-6 hours; 
Percentage of asylum officers: 48; 
Percentage of supervisory asylum officers: 58. 

Estimated hours needed to complete asylum cases: About 7 hours or more; 
Percentage of asylum officers: 17; 
Percentage of supervisory asylum officers: 15. 

Estimated hours needed to complete asylum cases: Unable to estimate; 
Percentage of asylum officers: 8; 
Percentage of supervisory asylum officers: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Notes: Asylum officer responses: n=171. 

Supervisory officer responses: n=40. 

There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items. 

Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

[End of table] 

Many asylum officer survey respondents indicated time constraints 
hindered their ability to thoroughly adjudicate cases. For example, of 
138 respondents who provided narrative comments explaining how they 
manage their caseload when they have insufficient time, 39 percent 
wrote that they rush through their work or cut back on doing country- 
condition research, interviewing, completing identity and security 
checks, or writing the assessment. Moreover, 43 percent of asylum 
officers reported that, during the past year, productivity standards 
hindered their ability to properly adjudicate in about half or more of 
their cases. 

Asylum Officers are taught at AOBTC that they must work under time 
constraints and develop interviewing skills that will enable them to 
gather all the information they need. However, they are also informed 
of the danger in rushing through an interview, which could lead the 
asylum officer to incorrectly assess credibility. In conducting 
interviews with asylum officers, we asked 12 officers how much time 
they spend conducting an asylum interview. Eleven of the 12 asylum 
officers said that, of the 4 hours they generally have available for a 
case, they typically spend between 1 and 2 hours conducting the 
applicant interview. Nearly 30 percent of asylum officers reported that 
they were able to elicit sufficient information in asylum interviews to 
properly evaluate the claim no more than about half of the time. 
Further, 92 percent reported that having more time to probe in an 
interview would moderately or greatly help them elicit better 
information during the asylum applicant interview to properly evaluate 
the claim, including assessing the applicant's eligibility and 
credibility. The same percentage reported that having more time to 
prepare for and conduct research prior to an interview would moderately 
or greatly help them elicit better information during the asylum 
applicant interview to properly evaluate the claim, including assessing 
the applicant's eligibility and credibility. 

In addition, when asked what would help them better identify fraud, 
asylum officer survey respondents who provided comments most frequently 
said that having more time would help them better identify fraud, with 
about 40 percent of the 98 respondents making such comments. For 
example, an asylum officer explained that although more tools to detect 
fraud are always useful, they are of little or no use if asylum 
officers are not given either time or correct training to use such 
tools. Another asylum officer stated that attorneys and preparers know 
that asylum officers do not have time to check into the claim and, 
thus, the "system is perpetuating fraud by not giving [asylum officers] 
time to concentrate on the adjudication." Sixty-four percent of 
supervisors (25 of 39) who responded to our survey indicated that 
asylum officers were not always completing a fraud referral sheet when 
they should in at least some of the cases they reviewed. Of the 111 
asylum officer survey respondents who explained what prevented them 
from referring suspected fraud cases to their FDNS-IO, about half 
attributed this to time limitations. 

One of USCIS's strategic goals is to combat fraud and, in 2007, the 
Asylum Division included measures for combating fraud in its 
performance work plan for supervisory asylum officers;[Footnote 65] 
however, it has not explicitly included measures for combating fraud in 
its performance work plan for asylum officers. Several asylum officers 
who provided comments to our survey explained that a disincentive 
exists to take the time to make a fraud referral when they suspect 
fraud. According to one asylum officer, there is no reason to make a 
fraud referral because the performance work plan does not reward it and 
it takes a lot of extra time. In October 2007, in response to a DHS 
Office of Inspector General recommendation,[Footnote 66] USCIS stated 
it plans to ensure that adjudicators' performance work plans include a 
measure for fraud detection--a recommendation that USCIS concurred with 
and plans to address. We reported in March 2003 that organizations 
should align individual performance expectations with organizational 
goals to improve performance by helping personnel connect their daily 
activities and organizational goals and encourage them to [Footnote 67] 
achieve these goals. As such, we agree with the Office of the Inspector 
General's recommendation. Asylum Division officials told us in July 
2008 that they had begun discussing this recommendation with USCIS and 
were looking to USCIS to take the lead on addressing the issue. 

Although most asylum officers and supervisors reported that asylum 
officers needed more time to thoroughly adjudicate asylum cases, 
management views were mixed. Five of the eight Asylum Office Directors 
said that they believed that the 4 hours asylum officers are given to 
complete a case was not reasonable, while three considered it to be 
reasonable. One Asylum Office Director elaborated that asylum officers 
do not struggle to complete cases within 4 hours, in part because the 
majority of the asylum cases adjudicated in that office are older cases 
that are usually easier to adjudicate. This Director explained that 
older cases may be easier if country conditions have changed so 
dramatically over time that the asylum claim can no longer be 
sustained, or if they were filed before asylum reform solely for the 
purpose of obtaining employment authorization. In the latter case, 
often the asylum claim is easily determined to be unsupported. The 
Asylum Division recognizes that asylum officers must work under time 
constraints and that the tasks and time involved in completing a 
particular case may increase due to factors such as a complicated story 
that takes additional time to fully elicit or several dependents being 
listed on an application. Nevertheless, the Chief of the Asylum 
Division said that the 4-hour average was sufficient and was not 
convinced that more time would lead to increased adjudication quality. 
Also, asylum officer performance work plan guidance states that under 
extenuating circumstances, supervisors can allow asylum officers to 
take more than the 4 days they typically have to provide their written 
decision to their supervisor.[Footnote 68] 

Adjudication Requirements Have Increased, While the Productivity 
Standard, Which Was Established Without Empirical Data, Has Remained 
the Same: 

Since 1999, asylum adjudication requirements have increased while the 
productivity standard, which was established without empirical data, 
has remained unchanged. As previously discussed in this report, since 
September 11, 2001, the Asylum Division added requirements for asylum 
officers to check additional identity and security databases and 
increased the procedural requirements regarding when to conduct certain 
checks. The Asylum Division estimates that 10 percent of asylum 
officers' time would be needed to conduct security checks and, in 2004, 
began including this in making staffing projections. We discussed this 
projection with five of the eight Asylum Office Directors we 
interviewed. Three of the five Asylum Office Directors estimated that 
asylum officers spent 10 percent of their time conducting security 
checks, and two stated that asylum officers spent more than 10 percent 
of their time conducting these checks. According to one of these 
Directors, 30 minutes of the 4 hours asylum officers generally have to 
complete a case is needed to conduct identity and security checks, and 
a QA/T explained that if the results of an identity and security check 
identify a potential concern, resolving that concern can add an hour to 
the adjudication process. In addition, beginning in 2007, asylum 
officers have been required to confirm that Service Center staff 
entered preparer information in RAPS and question the applicant if no 
information was entered, as well as contact, swear in, and document 
contact with interpreter monitors. Furthermore, all of the eight Asylum 
Office Directors we interviewed commented that, over time, asylum cases 
have become more complex or that requirements for completing cases have 
increased. According to one Asylum Office Director, while tools have 
been provided to deal with the increased complexity of fraud in asylum 
applications, the asylum officers have not been given more time to use 
these tools. 

[A Supervisory Asylum Officer on the 4-Hour Case Model: 
The four hour case model has been used for many years, however over 
those years, many procedures have been added to the cases, many cases 
have become more complicated than those the Asylum Division handled at 
the inception of the asylum program, and the law has also evolved and 
become more complex. The applicants have become more sophisticated in 
their attempts at committing fraud, as well, and this development has 
caused a need for more investigation into the cases and more detailed 
lines of questioning. Additionally, since 9/11, [asylum officers] have 
been given more responsibility with regard to the review of computer 
security checks and identity checks, which takes extra time...All of 
this adds time to a case adjudication, yet we are still following the 
four hour case model. --Supervisory asylum officer survey respondent.] 

Although the overall caseload of the Asylum Division has steadily 
declined from about 450,000 cases in 2002 to 83,000 cases in 2007, this 
has not translated into asylum officers having more time to adjudicate 
asylum cases.[Footnote 69] If local management is not able to assign 
asylum officers 18 asylum cases per 2-week period, it assigns asylum 
officers other Asylum Division work that is equivalent to 18 asylum 
cases to compensate for fewer asylum cases. Given the other work 
assigned, asylum officers continue to have an average of 4 hours under 
the productivity standard to complete each asylum case assigned. 
According to six of the eight Asylum Office Directors, asylum officers 
in their offices are generally being assigned work that equates to 18 
asylum cases--that is, they are assigned asylum interviews in 
combination with other work. To compensate for being assigned fewer 
than the 18 asylum cases, asylum officers adjudicated nonasylum cases 
(i.e., credible fear, reasonable fear, and NACARA cases) and performed 
additional work such as administrative closures and research projects. 
Because of the decline in overall caseload, the Asylum Division plans 
to take on new responsibilities for asylum officers that are similar to 
their current work, such as adjudicating Refugee/Asylum Relative 
Petitions. The adjudication of these petitions will be modeled on the 
current asylum adjudication process, requiring interviews and checks 
against US-VISIT, in addition to the other mandatory identity and 
security checks. The division also increased the number of asylum 
officers assigned to overseas details from about 12 officers in 2007 to 
40 officers in 2008. 

According to the Asylum Division Chief, the productivity standard was 
established in 1999 as the result of discussions with the asylum 
officers' union and management's judgment. The Asylum Division had not 
conducted a time study or gathered empirical data. At that time, the 
productivity standard was reduced from 24 cases to 18 cases in a 2-week 
period. Asylum Division training materials explain that the 
productivity standard helps the Asylum Division achieve its mission of 
protecting refugees, while meeting quality and timeliness goals. 
Further, if the productivity standard is set too low, the Asylum 
Division would not have a reasonable ability to keep pace with new 
receipts given the staff available, whereas if it is set too high, the 
quality of adjudications would likely suffer. Asylum Division officials 
further explained that setting the productivity standard too low could 
result in adjudication delays that might encourage spurious filings of 
asylum applications for the purpose of obtaining employment 
authorizations. In May 2003, we reported that time studies, in general, 
have the substantial benefit of providing quantitative information that 
can be used to create objective and defensible measures of workload and 
can account for time differences in completing work that can vary in 
complexity. However, such studies do place some burden on personnel 
during data collection and involve other costs as well.[Footnote 70] 
Without empirical data on which to base the asylum officer's 
productivity standard, the Asylum Division is not in the position to 
know whether asylum officers have sufficient time to conduct thorough 
asylum adjudications. 

Key Factors Affecting Immigration Judge Adjudications Are Similar to 
Those Identified by Asylum Officers: 

Immigration judges' responses to our survey indicated that key factors 
affecting their adjudications were similar to those that asylum 
officers identified. As shown in figure 9, of the 11 aspects of 
adjudicating asylum cases we inquired about in our survey, immigration 
judge survey respondents most frequently cited verifying fraud (88 
percent) as a moderately or very challenging aspect of adjudicating 
asylum cases. The vast majority also reported time limitations (82 
percent) and assessing credibility (81 percent) as moderately or very 
challenging. 

Figure 9: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents Who 
Reported Aspects of Adjudicating Asylum Cases to Be Moderately or Very 
Challenging: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Verifying fraud; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 88.1. 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Time limitations; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 82.3. 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Assessing credibility; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 80.8. 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Managing your caseload; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 77.1. 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Attorney preparedness; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 76.9. 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Rendering oral decisions 
immediately after hearing cases; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 70.7. 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Identifying suspected fraud; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 70.6. 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Identifying national security 
risks; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 66.7. 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Reserving a decision for later 
delivery; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 60.1. 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Staying current with case law; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 58. 

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Staying current with country 
conditions; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 54.1. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the 
survey items. 

[End of figure] 

Immigration Judges Reported Challenges in Identifying Fraud and 
Assessing Credibility: 

Most immigration judges who responded to our survey identified fraud 
and assessing credibility as significant challenges in adjudicating 
asylum cases. In assessing an applicant's eligibility for asylum, 
immigration judges consider adverse factors, including the use of fraud 
to gain admittance to the United States and inconsistent statements 
made by the asylum applicant. As an immigration judge respondent 
explained, "it is very easy to suspect fraud, but as in all civil 
cases, fraud is one of the most difficult things to actually prove. 
Unless the DHS... can prove fraud by a preponderance of the evidence, 
or a respondent admits facts constituting fraud, the suspicion of fraud 
will remain just that." 

Of the various types of fraud that we inquired about in our survey, the 
majority of immigration judges who responded reported that all the 
types of fraud were moderately or very difficult to identify, with 
attorney fraud (66 percent) and identity fraud (66 percent) most 
frequently reported as difficult to identify, as shown in figure 10.: 

Figure 10: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge Survey 
Respondents Reported as Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data: 

Type of fraud: Suspected attorney fraud; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 66.2. 

Type of fraud: Suspected identity fraud; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 66.2. 

Type of fraud: Suspected preparer fraud; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 56.6. 

Type of fraud: Suspected document fraud; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 55.8. 

Type of fraud: Suspected fraud in the claim; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 53.9. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Note: n= 159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the 
survey items. 

[End of figure] 

Of the various types of fraud that we inquired about in our survey, the 
majority of immigration judges reported that all the types of fraud 
presented a challenge in at least some of the cases that they 
adjudicated over the last year. For example, as shown in figure 11, in 
at least some of the cases they adjudicated over the past year, 94 
percent of immigration judges reported that suspected fraud in the 
claim presented a challenge, and 93 percent reported that suspected 
document fraud presented a challenge. 

Figure 11: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge Survey 
Respondents Reported as Presenting a Challenge in Some or All of the 
Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data: 

Type of fraud: Suspected fraud in the claim; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 94. 

Type of fraud: Suspected document fraud; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 93. 

Type of fraud: Suspected preparer fraud; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 85. 

Type of fraud: Suspected identity fraud; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 73. 

Type of fraud: Suspected attorney in the claim; 
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 54. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the 
survey items. 

[End of figure] 

Most immigration judges who responded to our survey also reported 
assessing credibility as a challenging aspect of adjudicating asylum 
cases. In each decision, an immigration judge must include a detailed 
credibility finding. Eighty-one percent of immigration judges reported 
that assessing credibility was a moderately or very challenging aspect 
of adjudicating asylum cases and an area in which they needed 
additional training. Further, 48 percent of immigration judges cited 
assessing credibility as one of their top three greatest challenges in 
adjudicating asylum cases. In addition, a NAIJ representative stated 
that assessing credibility is very difficult and that immigration 
judges would be better able to explore issues relevant to credibility 
if they had more time in court to review testimony and evidence.: 

The majority of immigration judges who responded to our survey reported 
impediments to assessing credibility in about half or more of the cases 
they adjudicated over the past year, including a lack of documentary 
evidence (70 percent), lack of other overseas information on applicants 
(61 percent), and lack of document verification from overseas (56 
percent), as shown in figure 12. An immigration judge survey respondent 
shared the view that because of a high level of fraud and abuse in 
asylum cases and in the process, any case-specific evidence the ICE 
trial attorneys could present to prove or disprove an asylum 
applicant's case would be extremely useful in trying to reach a fair 
and just result for the parties. Although lack of overseas information 
was reportedly an impediment to immigration judges' ability to assess 
credibility, according to EOIR, it is the role of the ICE trial 
attorney or the asylum applicant to gather information from overseas 
agencies and verify the authenticity of documents.[Footnote 71] 

Figure 12: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents Who 
Reported Impediments to Assessing Credibility in about Half or More of 
the Asylum Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data: 

Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of documentary evidence; 
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 69.9. 

Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of other overseas information 
on applicants; 
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 60.9. 

Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of document verification from 
overseas; 
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 56.4. 

Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of document verification from 
FDL; 
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 44.2. 

Impediment to assessing credibility: Insufficient time to prepare for 
and review cases; 
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 39.4. 

Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of a record from the asylum 
officer's interview; 
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 25. 

Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of information on country 
conditions; 
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 16.6. 

Impediment to assessing credibility: Quality of interpretation in the 
courtroom; 
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 8.4. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the 
survey items. 

[End of figure] 

In response to reforms directed by the Attorney General in 2006, EOIR 
designed the Fraud and Abuse Program that established a formal 
procedure for immigration judges, BIA members, and other EOIR staff to 
report suspected instances of immigration fraud or abuse. Prior to the 
implementation of this new program, immigration judges reported 
suspected fraud on an ad hoc basis primarily through management 
channels or EOIR's Attorney Discipline Program.: 

The goals of the Fraud and Abuse Program include: 

* protecting the integrity of proceedings before EOIR; 

* referring, where appropriate, information to either law enforcement 
or a disciplinary authority;[Footnote 72] 

* encouraging and supporting investigations and prosecutions; and: 

* providing immigration judges, BIA members, and other EOIR staff with 
source materials to aid in screening for fraudulent activity. 

According to EOIR, the program improves immigration judges' ability to 
identify fraud by providing examples of prevalent forms of fraud and 
abuse and suggestions for the screening of boilerplate claims and 
common addresses. The program issues a monthly newsletter conveying 
such information and has also established a Web site. 

EOIR provided some training on the Fraud and Abuse Program. Although 
the majority of immigration judges who responded to our survey reported 
being somewhat or not at all familiar with EOIR's new Fraud and Abuse 
Program, EOIR was in the process of informing immigration judges of 
this program when we conducted our survey during May through July 2007. 
As of July 2008, the manager of the program had conducted presentations 
at 26 immigration courts and at the annual immigration judge 
conference. A NAIJ representative stated that the Fraud and Abuse 
Program presentation that immigration judges received during the annual 
immigration judge conference was useful, but because the program was 
new, NAIJ had not received feedback from immigration judges indicating 
their use of the program. 

According to EOIR, the Fraud and Abuse program is tracking all incoming 
referrals. As of July 2008, the program had received 132 referrals, 
including referrals of suspected asylum fraud and document fraud. 
Twenty-six of the 132 referrals were made by immigration judges. 
Patterns in referrals will be used to alert EOIR staff and other 
entities to fraud schemes. According to EOIR, as the Fraud and Abuse 
Program is relatively new, it remains flexible to respond to agency 
needs. The program has surveyed staff who attended the presentations at 
immigration courts about additional services they would like from the 
program and, according to EOIR officials, solicited immigration judges' 
input in July 2008 to develop ideas for additional training, among 
other things. EOIR officials stated that the Fraud and Abuse Program 
Manager has developed internal benchmarks of performance to assess the 
program, such as responding to all referrals within 5 days and 
reviewing inactive cases every 60 days. 

Immigration Judges Reported Facing Time Constraints and EOIR Has Taken 
Some Steps to Address This Challenge: 

Most immigration judges who responded to our survey reported time 
constraints as a challenge in adjudicating asylum cases, and EOIR has 
taken some steps to mitigate these challenges. Specifically, 82 percent 
of immigration judges who responded to our survey reported that time 
limitations were moderately or very challenging in adjudicating asylum 
cases and 77 percent reported that managing caseload was moderately or 
very challenging. The fact that the growth in the number of onboard 
immigration judges has not kept pace with overall growth in caseload 
and case completions, which include asylum cases, may contribute to 
this challenge. While, from fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the number 
of onboard immigration judges increased by 2 (from 214 to 216 
immigration judges), caseload, which includes newly filed and reopened 
cases and cases pending from prior years, rose 14 percent from about 
442,000 to about 506,000 and completions rose 20 percent from about 
274,000 to about 328,000. The average caseload per onboard immigration 
judge rose 13 percent from 2,067 cases in fiscal year 2002 to 2,343 
cases in fiscal year 2007. 

According to a NAIJ representative, time constraints can have an effect 
on the quality of decisions. The representative further explained that 
if a case needs to be delayed or rescheduled, it may be rescheduled as 
much as a full year later because of the volume of cases on an 
immigration judge's schedule. According to EOIR, both an immigration 
judge's overall caseload and the way the immigration judge manages that 
caseload affect the pressures the immigration judge experiences on the 
bench. A heavy caseload may limit an immigration judge's ability to 
manage comfortably. 

[A U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Judge on Time Constraints Facing 
Immigration Judges: 
A single [Immigration] Judge has to dispose of 1,400 cases a year or 
nearly twenty-seven cases a week, or more than five each business day, 
simply to stay abreast of his docket. I fail to see how Immigration 
Judges can be expected to make thorough and competent findings of fact 
and conclusions of law under these circumstances. This is especially 
true given the unique nature of immigration hearings. Aliens frequently 
do not speak English, so the Immigration Judge must work with a 
translator, and the Immigration Judge normally must go over particular 
testimony several times before he can be confident that he is getting 
an accurate answer from the alien. Hearings, particularly in asylum 
cases, are highly fact intensive and depend upon the presentation and 
consideration of numerous details and documents to determine issues of 
credibility and to reach factual conclusions. This can take no small 
amount of time depending on the nature of the alien's testimony.--The 
Honorable John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the 2nd Circuit in addressing the U.S. Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary, April 2006.] 

Nearly all immigration judge survey respondents also reported needing 
more than the 4 hours off the bench that is provided for them to handle 
administrative matters.[Footnote 73] Fifty-two percent reported that 
they need more than 8 hours per week for administrative tasks and 45 
percent said they need about 5 to 8 hours. Sixty-nine percent reported 
that they did not use their administrative time as intended about half 
the time; instead, they used that time to hear cases. 

According to EOIR, EOIR monitors the caseload of each immigration court 
to identify courts that have been unable to meet their established 
goals for timely case adjudication and provides assistance to help 
those courts meet these goals. In 2006, we reported that EOIR helped 
courts address growing caseloads by detailing immigration judges, using 
technology, transferring responsibility for hearing locations, and 
establishing new courts.[Footnote 74] EOIR informed us in 2007 that it 
continues to employ these mechanisms. In 2007, when we surveyed 
immigration judges, 57 percent reported that having a visiting 
immigration judge detailed to their court somewhat or greatly helped 
their ability to manage their caseload, and 40 percent reported having 
immigration judges from other courts hear cases via videoconference 
somewhat or greatly helped their ability to manage their caseload. 

In addition, because of the volume of cases that immigration judges 
handle, EOIR advises immigration judges to issue oral decisions 
immediately after hearing a case, deeming it generally to be the most 
efficient way to complete cases.[Footnote 75] However, 71 percent of 
immigration judges who responded to our survey reported that rendering 
an oral decision immediately after a hearing was moderately or very 
challenging. According to a NAIJ representative, oral decisions are 
difficult because immigration judges are trying to balance multiple 
tasks at once during a hearing--listening carefully to the testimony, 
asking follow-up questions, and applying case law correctly. Having 
time to reflect after listening to testimony, and having time to 
prepare a written decision would result in better decisions. However, 
according to EOIR, rendering oral decisions following a hearing allows 
both sides to hear the decision while the evidence is fresh in their 
minds and then make an informed choice whether to appeal the decision. 
Furthermore, immigration judges who reserve decisions for later quickly 
develop a backlog. 

According to EOIR, issues resulting from heavy caseloads are best 
addressed by increasing the number of immigration judges and staff 
available. To help immigration judges better manage their caseload, 
EOIR requested funding to hire 240 additional staff for immigration 
courts. According to EOIR, in developing its request, it considered 
budget guidance and the number of positions it could reasonably expect 
to fill in a given year. One hundred and twenty new positions were 
requested and funded in fiscal year 2007, 20 of which were immigration 
judge positions. Although EOIR requested funding for the remaining 120 
positions in fiscal year 2008, it did not receive its full budget 
request. As a result, EOIR abolished its plans to hire an additional 
120 positions in fiscal year 2008, including 20 immigration judge 
positions. Prior to the hiring of additional staff, most immigration 
judges who responded to our survey reported that having additional law 
clerks (98 percent), additional immigration judges (84 percent), and 
additional administrative court staff (77 percent) would moderately or 
greatly improve their ability to carry out their responsibilities. 
According to EOIR, as of May 2008, it was in the process of hiring 
approximately 38 immigration judges, comprised of newly authorized 
positions and replacements for attrition. Until all authorized 
immigration court staff are on board, it is too soon to determine the 
extent to which increased staffing will affect immigration judges' 
ability to manage their caseload. 

Conclusions: 

Adjudicating asylum cases is a challenging undertaking because asylum 
officers do not always have the means to determine which claims are 
authentic and which are fraudulent. USCIS has taken steps to instill 
quality and strengthen the integrity of the asylum decision-making 
process. However, asylum officers still face adjudication challenges, 
including asylum fraud, lack of information from entities outside USCIS 
that could help assess the authenticity of claims, and increased 
responsibilities without additional time to carry them out. With 
potentially serious consequences for asylum applicants if they are 
incorrectly denied asylum and for the United States if criminals or 
terrorists are granted asylum, asylum officers must make the best 
decision they can within the constraints that are placed on them. 

The mechanisms USCIS designed to promote quality and integrity in 
decision making can be better utilized to decrease the risk that 
incorrect asylum decisions are made. Eliciting information through 
applicant interviews is a challenging and critical component of an 
asylum officer's ability to distinguish between genuine and fraudulent 
claims. By supplementing existing training with additional 
opportunities for asylum officers to observe skilled interviewers, the 
Asylum Division could improve asylum officers' ability to elicit needed 
information during an applicant interview to help distinguish between a 
genuine and fraudulent claim. In addition, by developing a framework to 
solicit asylum officers' and supervisors' views of their training needs 
in a structured and consistent manner, the Asylum Division would help 
ensure that headquarters and Asylum Offices have more complete 
information from which to make training decisions. Furthermore, by more 
fully implementing its quality review framework, the Asylum Division 
would be in a better position to identify deficiencies in the quality 
of asylum decisions asylum officers make, identify the root causes of 
such deficiencies, and take appropriate action, such as focusing 
training opportunities. 

Insufficient time for asylum officers to adjudicate cases can undermine 
the efficacy of the tools that asylum officers do have, as well as 
USCIS's goals to ensure quality and combat fraud. We recognize that 
conducting an empirical study of the time asylum officers need to 
complete a thorough adjudication, including conducting increased 
security checks and referring instances of suspected fraud when 
appropriate, would involve some expenditure of resources. However, 
doing so would better position the Asylum Division to know whether it 
is providing asylum officers with the time needed to do their job in 
accordance with their procedures manual and training. More recent 
tools, such as additional identity and security check information and 
the placement of FDNS immigration officers in Asylum Offices can be 
valuable, but only if asylum officers have the time to fully utilize 
them. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, we 
recommend that the Chief of the Asylum Division take the following five 
actions: 

* explore ways to provide additional opportunities for asylum officers 
to observe skilled interviewers; 

* develop a framework for soliciting information in a structured and 
consistent manner on asylum officers' and supervisors' respective 
training needs, including, at a minimum, training needs discussed in 
this report; 

* ensure that the information collected on training needs is used to 
provide training to asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers at 
the offices where the information shows it is needed or nationally, 
when training needs are common; 

* develop a plan to more fully implement the quality review framework-
-and complement existing supervisory and headquarters reviews--to 
include, among other things, how to ensure that in each Asylum Office a 
sample of decisions of asylum officers are reviewed for quality and 
consistency and interviews conducted by asylum officers are observed; 
and: 

* develop a cost-effective way to collect empirical data on the time it 
takes asylum officers to thoroughly complete the steps in the 
adjudication process and revise productivity standards, if warranted. 

Agency Comments: 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from DHS, DOJ, and 
State. The departments did not provide official written comments to 
include in our report. However, in e-mails received September 12, 2008, 
the DHS and USCIS liaisons stated that DHS concurred with our 
recommendations. DHS and EOIR provided written technical comments, 
which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, 
and the Secretary of State. We will also provide copies to others on 
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 
GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. For further 
information about this report, please contact Richard M. Stana, 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512-8777 or at 
stanar@gao.gov. GAO staff members who were major contributors to this 
report are listed in appendix VII. 

Signed by: 

Richard M. Stana, Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers: 

We sent our Web-based survey to all asylum officers who were in their 
position at the end of fiscal year 2006. We received 189 responses from 
asylum officers, resulting in a 74 percent response rate. To ensure 
survey respondents had recent knowledge about the issues our survey 
explored, 18 of the 189 respondents were directed to not complete the 
rest of survey because their responses to our initial questions 
indicated their primary responsibilities did not include adjudicating 
asylum cases or they had adjudicated no, or almost no, asylum cases 
over the past year. Although 171 asylum officers completed the survey, 
the number answering any particular question may be lower, depending on 
how many chose to answer any given question. In addition, for certain 
questions, respondents were instructed to skip particular questions 
based on their responses to previous questions. Each question includes 
the number of asylum officers responding to it. 

Our survey was comprised of closed-and open-ended questions. In this 
appendix, we include all the survey questions and aggregate results of 
responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information 
on responses provided to the open-ended questions. For a more detailed 
discussion of our survey methodology see appendix IV. 

Background: 

Q1. How long have you been an Asylum Officer? (In years): 

Mean: 6; 
Median: 5; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 16; 
Number of respondents: 189. 

Q2. How long have you been an Asylum Officer with the office you are 
assigned to currently? (In years): 

Mean: 6; 
Median: 5; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 16; 
Number of respondents: 189. 

Q3. Over the past year, did your primary responsibilities include 
interviewing and adjudicating affirmative asylum, credible/reasonable 
fear, or NACARA cases? 

Yes (percent): 96; 
No (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 189. 

Q3a. Over the past year, about how many of the cases you adjudicated 
were affirmative asylum cases? 

All or almost all cases (percent): 36; 
Most cases (percent): 25; 
About half the cases (percent): 22; 
Some cases (percent): 11; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 181. 

Training: 

Q4. Were you certified in-house before you attended the Asylum Officer 
Basic Training Course (AOBTC)? 

Yes (percent): 39; 
No (percent): 61; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

Q5. Overall, how well or poorly did AOBTC prepare you to adjudicate 
affirmative asylum cases? 

Very well (percent): 25; 
Moderately well (percent): 50; 
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 12; 
Moderately poorly (percent): 8; 
Very poorly (percent): 4; 
Not applicable, have not attended AOBTC (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

Q6. Do you think AOBTC needs to be improved in any of the following 
areas to better prepare you to make affirmative asylum decisions? 
[Where Q5 is "very well", "moderately well", "neither well nor poorly", 
"moderately poorly", "very poorly", or "do not know"] 

a. Conducting identity and security checks; 
Yes (percent): 76; 
No (percent): 11; 
Don't know (percent): 13; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

b. Identifying possible issues relating to national security; 
Yes (percent): 66; 
No (percent): 23; 
Don't know (percent): 10; 
Number of respondents: 163. 

c. Interviewing skills; 
Yes (percent): 39; 
No (percent): 56; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 163. 

d. Legal requirements for asylum eligibility; 
Yes (percent): 23; 
No (percent): 72; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 162. 

e. Country conditions research; 
Yes (percent): 29; 
No (percent): 67; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 163. 

f. Identifying possible fraud; 
Yes (percent): 77; 
No (percent): 17; 
Don't know (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

g. Decision writing; 
Yes (percent): 33; 
No (percent): 61; 
Don't know (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 162. 

h. Asylum process and procedures; 
Yes (percent): 37; 
No (percent): 57; 
Don't know (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

i. Time management; 
Yes (percent): 60; 
No (percent): 34; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 164. 

j. Other; 
Yes (percent): 64; 
No (percent): 27; 
Don't know (percent): 9; 
Number of respondents: 78. 

Q7. How much, if at all, is additional training on the following topics 
needed at your asylum office to improve your ability to adjudicate 
affirmative asylum claims? 

a. Asylum process and procedures; 
Greatly needed (percent): 16; 
Moderately needed (percent): 27; 
Slightly needed (percent): 31; 
Not at all needed (percent): 24; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 165. 

b. Conducting identity and security checks (i.e., database queries and 
any related research); 
Greatly needed (percent): 31; 
Moderately needed (percent): 32; 
Slightly needed (percent): 25; 
Not at all needed (percent): 10; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

c. Interpreting the results of identity and security checks; 
Greatly needed (percent): 43; 
Moderately needed (percent): 25; 
Slightly needed (percent): 21; 
Not at all needed (percent): 10; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

d. One-year filing deadline; 
Greatly needed (percent): 5; 
Moderately needed (percent): 20; 
Slightly needed (percent): 23; 
Not at all needed (percent): 49; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

e. Mandatory bars to asylum; 
Greatly needed (percent): 11; 
Moderately needed (percent): 23; 
Slightly needed (percent): 35; 
Not at all needed (percent): 30; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

f. Issues related to national security; 
Greatly needed (percent): 31; 
Moderately needed (percent): 26; 
Slightly needed (percent): 24; 
Not at all needed (percent): 17; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

g. Interviewing skills; 
Greatly needed (percent): 18; 
Moderately needed (percent): 21; 
Slightly needed (percent): 25; 
Not at all needed (percent): 33; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

h. Understanding intercultural communication; 
Greatly needed (percent): 13; 
Moderately needed (percent): 19; 
Slightly needed (percent): 22; 
Not at all needed (percent): 42; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

i. Understanding how stress and trauma may affect the interview; 
Greatly needed (percent): 16; 
Moderately needed (percent): 21; 
Slightly needed (percent): 23; 
Not at all needed (percent): 36; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 165. 

j. Assessing credibility; 
Greatly needed (percent): 40; 
Moderately needed (percent): 24; 
Slightly needed (percent): 16; 
Not at all needed (percent): 18; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 165. 

k. Current trends in fraud; 
Greatly needed (percent): 52; 
Moderately needed (percent): 27; 
Slightly needed (percent): 12; 
Not at all needed (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

l. Identifying fraudulent documents; 
Greatly needed (percent): 57; 
Moderately needed (percent): 26; 
Slightly needed (percent): 12; 
Not at all needed (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 164. 

m. Identifying fraud in claim; 
Greatly needed (percent): 53; 
Moderately needed (percent): 24; 
Slightly needed (percent): 13; 
Not at all needed (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

n. Identifying interpreter fraud; 
Greatly needed (percent): 43; 
Moderately needed (percent): 22; 
Slightly needed (percent): 16; 
Not at all needed (percent): 17; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

o. Identifying preparer fraud; 
Greatly needed (percent): 51; 
Moderately needed (percent): 21; 
Slightly needed (percent): 16; 
Not at all needed (percent): 10; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

p. Identifying attorney fraud; 
Greatly needed (percent): 50; 
Moderately needed (percent): 17; 
Slightly needed (percent): 20; 
Not at all needed (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 165. 

q. Using the Asylum Virtual Library; 
Greatly needed (percent): 21; 
Moderately needed (percent): 23; 
Slightly needed (percent): 30; 
Not at all needed (percent): 25; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 162. 

r. Other country condition research methods; 
Greatly needed (percent): 14; 
Moderately needed (percent): 32; 
Slightly needed (percent): 23; 
Not at all needed (percent): 28; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

s. Country condition updates; 
Greatly needed (percent): 17; 
Moderately needed (percent): 29; 
Slightly needed (percent): 26; 
Not at all needed (percent): 26; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

t. Applying country condition information; 
Greatly needed (percent): 15; 
Moderately needed (percent): 22; 
Slightly needed (percent): 22; 
Not at all needed (percent): 40; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 164. 

u. U.S. asylum law (e.g., case law, changes in statute and 
regulations); 
Greatly needed (percent): 18; 
Moderately needed (percent): 26; 
Slightly needed (percent): 31; 
Not at all needed (percent): 24; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

v. Conducting legal research; 
Greatly needed (percent): 16; 
Moderately needed (percent): 28; 
Slightly needed (percent): 25; 
Not at all needed (percent): 29; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

w. Applying the REAL ID Act; 
Greatly needed (percent): 41; 
Moderately needed (percent): 27; 
Slightly needed (percent): 20; 
Not at all needed (percent): 11; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

x. Writing decisions; 
Greatly needed (percent): 11; 
Moderately needed (percent): 18; 
Slightly needed (percent): 28; 
Not at all needed (percent): 40; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

y. Time management; 
Greatly needed (percent): 38; 
Moderately needed (percent): 19; 
Slightly needed (percent): 22; 
Not at all needed (percent): 20; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 162. 

Q8. Are there topics, other than those listed in the previous question, 
that you think should be addressed through training? 

Yes (percent): 40; 
No (percent): 49; 
Don't know (percent): 11; 
Number of respondents: 152. 

Q9. What other topic(s) should be addressed through training? 

Q10. Has your asylum office solicited your views on what training 
should be offered locally? 

Yes (percent): 32; 
No (percent): 63; 
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 163. 

Q11. Approximately when were your views last solicited? [Where Q10 is 
"Yes"] 

Within the past 6 months (percent): 61; 
More than 6 months ago, but within the past year (percent): 14; 
More than 1 year ago, but within the past 2 years (percent): 14; 
More than 2 years ago, but within the past 5 years (percent): 2; 
More than 5 years ago (percent): 0; Don't know (percent): 10; 
Number of respondents: 51. 

Q12. Over the past year, on average, about how many hours per week of 
formal training, informal training, and self-study time (e.g., 
conducting research, reading case law, reviewing new training materials 
or procedural memos) has your office provided you? 

Less than 1 hour (percent): 12; 
About 1 hour (percent): 12; 
About 2 hours (percent): 34; 
About 3 hours (percent): 7; 
About 4 hours (percent): 20; 
More than 4 hours (percent): 4; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 11; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

Q13. Of the training time provided during the past year, about what 
portion, on average, was intended for self-study (e.g., conducting 
research, reading case law, reviewing new training materials or 
procedural memos)? 

All or almost all of that time (percent): 4; 
Most of that time (percent): 10; 
About half of that time (percent): 11; 
Some of that time (percent): 32; 
None or almost none of that time (percent): 36; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 8; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

Q14. Of that self-study time, about what portion, on average, have you 
used to do your routine work (e.g., adjudicating cases, performing 
administrative tasks, checking e-mail)? 

All or almost all of that time (percent): 41; 
Most of that time (percent): 14; 
About half of that time (percent): 6; 
Some of that time (percent): 10; 
None or almost none of that time (percent): 21; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 8; 
Number of respondents: 159. 

Q15. What are the primary reasons that you use self-study time to 
perform other duties? 

Q16. What, if anything, would make training at your asylum office more 
effective? 

Identity and Security Checks: 

Q17. Who generally conducts the identity and security checks on the 
affirmative asylum cases that are assigned to you? 

I generally do the checks (percent): 61; 
Others generally do the checks (percent): 11; 
Generally I do some of the checks and other staff do other checks 
(percent): 28; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

Q18. Do you think your ability to conduct and review identity and 
security checks would be improved by having additional time or training 
in the following areas? [Where Q17 is either "I generally do the 
checks" or "Generally I do some of the checks and other staff do other 
checks"] 

a. Additional time to conduct required checks; 
Yes (percent): 87; 
No (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 150. 

b. Additional time to conduct checks beyond those that are required; 
Yes (percent): 78; 
No (percent): 15; 
Don't know (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 149. 

c. Additional training on conducting all required checks; 
Yes (percent): 61; 
No (percent): 34; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 146. 

d. Additional training on conducting checks beyond those that are 
required; 
Yes (percent): 66; 
No (percent): 25; 
Don't know (percent): 9; 
Number of respondents: 146. 

e. Additional training on the type of information contained in the 
various databases I search; 
Yes (percent): 80; 
No (percent): 16; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 148. 

f. Additional training on how to interpret the results of checks; 
Yes (percent): 83; 
No (percent): 15; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 148. 

g. Other; 
Yes (percent): 63; 
No (percent): 31; 
Don't know (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 51. 

Q19. Please list the checks, if any, for which you would like more time 
or training. 

Q20. In general, how often are the identity and security checks that 
others conduct sufficiently thorough? [Where Q17 is either "Others 
generally do the checks" or "Generally I do some of the checks, and 
other staff do other checks"] 

Always or almost always (percent): 18; 
Most of the time (percent): 42; 
About half of the time (percent): 18; 
Some of the time (percent): 14; 
Never or almost never (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 66. 

Q21. In general, how easy or difficult is it for you to interpret the 
results of the identity and security checks that others conduct? [Where 
Q17 is either "Others generally do the checks" or "Generally I do some 
of the checks, and other staff do other checks"] 

Very easy (percent): 23; 
Moderately easy (percent): 35; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 26; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 15; 
Very difficult (percent): 2; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 66. 

Q22. In terms of identifying applicants who should or should not 
receive asylum, do you think it is more effective for you to conduct 
your own security and identity checks, or to have others in the office 
conduct the checks before the case is assigned to you? 

It is more effective for me to conduct my own security checks 
(percent): 44; 
It is more effective to have others in the office conduct the checks 
before the case is assigned to me (percent): 42; 
It makes no difference (percent): 7; 
Don't know (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

Q23. When conducting identity and security checks, how well do you 
understand: 

a. the type of information contained in the various databases or 
systems you check? 
Greatly understand (percent): 31; 
Moderately understand (percent): 58; 
Slightly understand (percent): 9; 
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

b. the results you receive? 
Greatly understand (percent): 30; 
Moderately understand (percent): 60; 
Slightly understand (percent): 8; 
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 164. 

Q24. Overall, how useful in accomplishing the following objectives do 
you consider the identity and security checks that you or others 
conduct at your office? 

a. Identify or provide information on individuals who pose a risk to 
national security and/or public safety; 
Very useful (percent): 47; 
Moderately useful (percent): 31; 
Slightly useful (percent): 17; 
Not at all useful (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

b. Provide information regarding applicants' eligibility for asylum; 
Very useful (percent): 40; 
Moderately useful (percent): 32; 
Slightly useful (percent): 22; 
Not at all useful (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 165. 

Q25. How useful do you consider each of the following databases or 
systems to be in identifying or providing information on individuals 
who may pose a risk to national security and/or public safety? 

a. FBI fingerprints; Very useful (percent): 68; Moderately useful 
(percent): 21; Slightly useful (percent): 8; Not at all useful 
(percent): 2; Not applicable (percent): 0; Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

b. FBI name check; 
Very useful (percent): 38; 
Moderately useful (percent): 19; 
Slightly useful (percent): 26; 
Not at all useful (percent): 11; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

c. IBIS; 
Very useful (percent): 63; 
Moderately useful (percent): 25; 
Slightly useful (percent): 9; 
Not at all useful (percent): 2; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

d. U.S.-VISIT/SIT; 
Very useful (percent): 53; 
Moderately useful (percent): 26; 
Slightly useful (percent): 12; 
Not at all useful (percent): 5; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

e. CIS; 
Very useful (percent): 38; 
Moderately useful (percent): 21; 
Slightly useful (percent): 22; 
Not at all useful (percent): 14; 
Not applicable (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

f. DACS; 
Very useful (percent): 34; 
Moderately useful (percent): 26; 
Slightly useful (percent): 24; 
Not at all useful (percent): 10; 
Not applicable (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

g. CCD (Department of State's Consolidated Consular Database); 
Very useful (percent): 53; 
Moderately useful (percent): 23; 
Slightly useful (percent): 15; 
Not at all useful (percent): 3; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

h. ChoicePoint; 
Very useful (percent): 22; 
Moderately useful (percent): 11; 
Slightly useful (percent): 7; 
Not at all useful (percent): 3; 
Not applicable (percent): 15; 
Don't know (percent): 42; 
Number of respondents: 161. 

Q26. How useful do you consider each of the following databases or 
systems to be in providing information regarding an applicant's 
eligibility for asylum? 

a. FBI fingerprints; 
Very useful (percent): 55; 
Moderately useful (percent): 17; 
Slightly useful (percent): 23; 
Not at all useful (percent): 5; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

b. FBI name check; 
Very useful (percent): 38; 
Moderately useful (percent): 15; 
Slightly useful (percent): 27; 
Not at all useful (percent): 16; 
Not applicable (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

c. IBIS; 
Very useful (percent): 49; 
Moderately useful (percent): 25; 
Slightly useful (percent): 18; 
Not at all useful (percent): 6; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

d. U.S.-VISIT/SIT; 
Very useful (percent): 57; 
Moderately useful (percent): 22; 
Slightly useful (percent): 15; 
Not at all useful (percent): 5; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

e. CIS; 
Very useful (percent): 39; 
Moderately useful (percent): 24; 
Slightly useful (percent): 21; 
Not at all useful (percent): 12; 
Not applicable (percent): 2; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

f. DACS; 
Very useful (percent): 38; 
Moderately useful (percent): 28; 
Slightly useful (percent): 21; 
Not at all useful (percent): 9; 
Not applicable (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

g. CCD (Department of State's Consolidated Consular Database); 
Very useful (percent): 60; 
Moderately useful (percent): 25; 
Slightly useful (percent): 9; 
Not at all useful (percent): 2; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

h. ChoicePoint; 
Very useful (percent): 21; 
Moderately useful (percent): 12; 
Slightly useful (percent): 4; 
Not at all useful (percent): 6; 
Not applicable (percent): 18; 
Don't know (percent): 38; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

Q27. Do you or others need additional data from, or access to, 
databases or systems in order to conduct identity and security checks? 

Yes (percent): 48; 
No (percent): 19; 
Don't know (percent): 33; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

Q28. Please identify the databases or systems to which you think access 
is needed. 

Q29. How, if at all, do you think identity and security checks can be 
improved? 

Case Assignment: 

Q30. How effective or ineffective do you think your office's current 
process is for assigning affirmative asylum cases to officers in: 

a. preventing fraud by asylum officers (e.g., precluding officers from 
arranging to adjudicate particular cases for money or other 
compensation)? 
Very effective (percent): 48; 
Moderately effective (percent): 15; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 7; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 5; 
Very ineffective (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 21; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

b. ensuring equitable distribution of workload among asylum officers? 
Very effective (percent): 18; 
Moderately effective (percent): 21; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 9; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 19; 
Very ineffective (percent): 25; 
Don't know (percent): 9; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

Q31. What, if anything, do you think could be done to improve the 
current process for assigning affirmative asylum cases in your office? 

Q32. In how many cases, if any, do you think that asylum officers' 
expertise (e.g., language capability or expertise in a particular 
geographic area) should be considered when affirmative asylum cases are 
assigned to officers? 

All or almost all cases (percent): 20; 
Most cases (percent): 13; 
About half the cases (percent): 6; 
Some cases (percent): 24; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 31; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

Q33. Please discuss why you think asylum officer expertise should or 
should not be considered in assigning cases. 

Interviewing and Assessing Credibility: 

Q34. Overall, in your affirmative asylum interviews, how often do you 
feel you are able to elicit sufficient information to properly evaluate 
the claim? 

Always or almost always (percent): 25; 
Most of the time (percent): 47; 
About half of the time (percent): 15; 
Some of the time (percent): 8; 
Never or almost never (percent): 5; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

Q35. Since being certified to conduct interviews, have you observed, or 
had the opportunity to observe, interviews conducted by skilled 
interviewers? 

I have had the opportunity to observe and have done so (percent): 44; 
I have had the opportunity but have not done so (percent): 0; 
I have not had the opportunity to do so (percent): 52; 
I don't recall (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 162. 

Q36. To improve asylum officers' interviewing skills, how useful do you 
think it would be for asylum officers to observe interviews conducted 
by skilled interviewers? 

Very useful (percent): 63; 
Moderately useful (percent): 25; 
Slightly useful (percent): 11; 
Not at all useful (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

Q37. How useful do you think it would be, or would have been, to 
observe skilled interviewers at the following stages in your career as 
an asylum officer? [Where Q36 is "very useful", "moderately useful", or 
"slightly useful"] 

a. During my 1st year as an asylum officer; 
Very useful (percent): 89; 
Moderately useful (percent): 10; 
Slightly useful (percent): 1; 
Not at all useful (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

b. During my 2nd year; 
Very useful (percent): 29; 
Moderately useful (percent): 42; 
Slightly useful (percent): 16; 
Not at all useful (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

c. Between my 3rd and 5th year; 
Very useful (percent): 20; 
Moderately useful (percent): 20; 
Slightly useful (percent): 28; 
Not at all useful (percent): 22; 
Don't know (percent): 10; 
Number of respondents: 148. 

d. After my 5th year; 
Very useful (percent): 21; 
Moderately useful (percent): 10; 
Slightly useful (percent): 29; 
Not at all useful (percent): 27; 
Don't know (percent): 13; 
Number of respondents: 143. 

e. When returning to affirmative asylum adjudications after other 
assignments or rotations; 
Very useful (percent): 37; 
Moderately useful (percent): 17; 
Slightly useful (percent): 25; 
Not at all useful (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 10; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

Q38. In adjudicating affirmative asylum cases during the past year, in 
about how many cases did you find each of the following to be a 
significant challenge to assessing credibility? 

a. Lack of documents provided by applicant; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 17; 
Most cases (percent): 19; 
About half the cases (percent): 18; 
Some cases (percent): 37; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 8; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

b. Insufficient time to prepare and conduct research prior to the 
interview; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 40; 
Most cases (percent): 21; 
About half the cases (percent): 12; 
Some cases (percent): 22; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 5; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

c. Insufficient time to probe in interview; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 34; 
Most cases (percent): 20; 
About half the cases (percent): 8; 
Some cases (percent): 28; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 8; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

d. My own inability to speak applicant's language; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 5; 
Most cases (percent): 7; 
About half the cases (percent): 7; 
Some cases (percent): 26; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 52; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

e. Lack of information regarding document validity; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 32; 
Most cases (percent): 18; 
About half the cases (percent): 11; 
Some cases (percent): 29; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 9; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

f. Lack of overseas information on applicant; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 32; 
Most cases (percent): 16; 
About half the cases (percent): 11; 
Some cases (percent): 25; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 14; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

g. Lack of information on country conditions; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 8; 
Most cases (percent): 2; 
About half the cases (percent): 5; 
Some cases (percent): 47; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 38; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

h. Other; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 52; 
Most cases (percent): 7; 
About half the cases (percent): 9; 
Some cases (percent): 14; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 5; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 14; 
Number of respondents: 44. 

Q39. How well do you understand how to apply each of the following 
provisions of the REAL ID Act as they pertain to adjudicating 
affirmative asylum cases? 

a. Determining whether the applicant has established that one of the 
five protected grounds was or will be at least one central reason for 
the persecution; 
Greatly understand (percent): 62; 
Moderately understand (percent): 28; 
Slightly understand (percent): 5; 
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

b. Determining whether the applicant should provide evidence that 
corroborates otherwise credible testimony; 
Greatly understand (percent): 39; 
Moderately understand (percent): 41; 
Slightly understand (percent): 14; 
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

c. Factoring a relevant inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood into a 
credibility determination, even if the inconsistency, inaccuracy, or 
falsehood does not go to the heart of the applicant's claim; 
Greatly understand (percent): 45; 
Moderately understand (percent): 34; 
Slightly understand (percent): 13; 
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 9; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

Q40. Do you face any barriers in applying the provisions of the REAL ID 
Act in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases? 

Yes (percent): 37; 
No (percent): 41; 
Don't know (percent): 22; 
Number of respondents: 162. 

Q40a. What barriers do you face? Please include in your response the 
specific provision(s) involved. 

Q41. How much, if at all, would the following possible changes help you 
elicit better information during the asylum applicant interview to 
properly evaluate the claim, including assessing the applicant's 
eligibility and credibility? 

a. Receiving more training on interview preparation; 
Greatly help (percent): 13; 
Moderately help (percent): 21; 
Slightly help (percent): 33; 
Not at all help (percent): 31; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

b. Receiving more training on how to conduct the interview; 
Greatly help (percent): 12; 
Moderately help (percent): 19; 
Slightly help (percent): 34; 
Not at all help (percent): 34; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

c. Receiving more training on eliciting information in the interview to 
test credibility; 
Greatly help (percent): 32; 
Moderately help (percent): 23; 
Slightly help (percent): 24; 
Not at all help (percent): 20; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

d. Receiving more training on how to evaluate credibility; 
Greatly help (percent): 30; 
Moderately help (percent): 19; 
Slightly help (percent): 26; 
Not at all help (percent): 23; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

e. Having more time during the interview; 
Greatly help (percent): 75; 
Moderately help (percent): 17; 
Slightly help (percent): 4; 
Not at all help (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

f. Having more time to prepare and conduct research prior to the 
interview; 
Greatly help (percent): 76; 
Moderately help (percent): 16; 
Slightly help (percent): 6; 
Not at all help (percent): 2; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

g. Receiving the A-file further in advance; 
Greatly help (percent): 52; 
Moderately help (percent): 23; 
Slightly help (percent): 13; 
Not at all help (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

h. Having greater discretion to conduct additional interviews when 
appropriate; 
Greatly help (percent): 44; 
Moderately help (percent): 20; 
Slightly help (percent): 21; 
Not at all help (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 164. 

i. Routinely conducting two interviews with the applicant on different 
dates to allow time for interim research; 
Greatly help (percent): 35; 
Moderately help (percent): 17; 
Slightly help (percent): 20; 
Not at all help (percent): 22; 
Don't know (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

j. Co-conducting the interview with another officer; 
Greatly help (percent): 24; 
Moderately help (percent): 16; 
Slightly help (percent): 14; 
Not at all help (percent): 34; 
Don't know (percent): 11; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

k. Having additional opportunities to collaborate with other officers 
on cases; 
Greatly help (percent): 44; 
Moderately help (percent): 23; 
Slightly help (percent): 18; 
Not at all help (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

l. Other; 
Greatly help (percent): 64; 
Moderately help (percent): 6; 
Slightly help (percent): 6; 
Not at all help (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 12; 
Number of respondents: 50. 

Use of Contracted Interpreter Monitors: 

Q42. Have you had experience with using contracted interpreter monitors 
during your affirmative asylum interviews? 

Yes (percent): 98; 
No (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

Q43. In general, how useful do you think the interpreter monitors are 
in: [Where Q42 is "Yes"] 

a. deterring interpreters from intentionally misinterpreting?; 
Very useful (percent): 60; 
Moderately useful (percent): 27; 
Slightly useful (percent): 8; 
Not at all useful (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

b. helping genuine refugees clearly communicate their claim and avoid 
misunderstandings due to poor interpretation?; 
Very useful (percent): 48; 
Moderately useful (percent): 34; 
Slightly useful (percent): 13;
Not at all useful (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

c. helping you identify fraud?; 
Very useful (percent): 27; 
Moderately useful (percent): 22; 
Slightly useful (percent): 28; 
Not at all useful (percent): 19; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

d. helping you expedite the interview?; 
Very useful (percent): 18; 
Moderately useful (percent): 17; 
Slightly useful (percent): 17; 
Not at all useful (percent): 44; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

Q44. Compared to the current practice of using interpreter monitors 
along with applicants' interpreters, how much do you think having only 
contracted telephonic interpreters would improve or worsen: 

a. genuine refugees' ability to clearly communicate their claim?; 
Greatly improve (percent): 42; 
Moderately improve (percent): 25; 
Neither improve nor worsen (percent): 15; 
Moderately worsen (percent): 9; 
Greatly worsen (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

b. your ability to identify fraud?; 
Greatly improve (percent): 40; 
Moderately improve (percent): 20; 
Neither improve nor worsen (percent): 26; 
Moderately worsen (percent): 3; 
Greatly worsen (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

c. your ability to expedite the interview?; 
Greatly improve (percent): 34; 
Moderately improve (percent): 25; 
Neither improve nor worsen (percent): 15; 
Moderately worsen (percent): 10; 
Greatly worsen (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 8; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

Assessing Fraud: 

Q45. Overall, how easy or difficult is it for you to identify each of 
the following types of fraud in affirmative asylum cases? 

a. Identity fraud; 
Very easy (percent): 4; 
Moderately easy (percent): 24; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 19; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 31; 
Very difficult (percent): 19; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

b. Document fraud; 
Very easy (percent): 2; 
Moderately easy (percent): 12; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 12; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 36; 
Very difficult (percent): 36; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

c. Interpreter fraud (when interpreter monitors are used); 
Very easy (percent): 18; 
Moderately easy (percent): 37; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 16; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 19; 
Very difficult (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

d. Preparer fraud; 
Very easy (percent): 9; 
Moderately easy (percent): 26; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 19; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 31; 
Very difficult (percent): 14; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

e. Attorney fraud; 
Very easy (percent): 5; 
Moderately easy (percent): 17; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 21; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 29; 
Very difficult (percent): 24; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

f. Fraud in claim; 
Very easy (percent): 8; 
Moderately easy (percent): 26; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 26; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 26; 
Very difficult (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

g. Fraud related to date or method of entry; 
Very easy (percent): 9; 
Moderately easy (percent): 29; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 16; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 30; 
Very difficult (percent): 15; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

h. Jurisdictional fraud (forum shopping); 
Very easy (percent): 8; 
Moderately easy (percent): 24; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 26; 
Very difficult (percent): 18; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

i. Other; Very easy (percent): 19; 
Moderately easy (percent): 9; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 6; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 6; 
Very difficult (percent): 28; 
Don't know (percent): 31; 
Number of respondents: 32. 

Q46. Over the past year, did you ever grant asylum for any of the 
following reasons, despite thinking the applicant tried to represent 
fraudulent documents as genuine? 

a. I found the applicant's claim to be credible; 
Yes (percent): 53; 
No (percent): 42; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 165. 

b. I found no legal basis to refer or deny; 
Yes (percent): 51; 
No (percent): 44; 
Don't know (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 162. 

c. My supervisor found that my reasons to refer or deny were not 
supported by the law or my analysis; 
Yes (percent): 32; 
No (percent): 62; 
Don't know (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 161. 

d. The process involved in granting asylum was easier than referring or 
denying; 
Yes (percent): 19; 
No (percent): 80; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 161. 

e. I didn't have sufficient time to gather the evidence needed to refer 
or deny the claim; 
Yes (percent): 36; 
No (percent): 61; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

f. The fraudulent document(s) were not material or relevant to the 
claim; 
Yes (percent): 48; 
No (percent): 44; 
Don't know (percent): 8; 
Number of respondents: 160. 

g. There was no way to verify whether the document(s) were truly 
fraudulent; 
Yes (percent): 59; 
No (percent): 37; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 165. 

h. My supervisor did not want me to send the document(s) to the 
Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL) for verification; 
Yes (percent): 19; 
No (percent): 79; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

i. Other; 
Yes (percent): 54; 
No (percent): 34; 
Don't know (percent): 11; 
Number of respondents: 35. 

Q47. Over the past year, in about how many cases in which you granted 
asylum did you do so despite thinking you were presented with 
fraudulent documents? [Where Q46 is "Yes" on one or more item] 

All or almost all of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 3; 
Most of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 5; 
About half of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 7; 
Some of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 49; 
None or almost none of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 
28; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 8; 
Number of respondents: 133. 

Q48. Overall, how effective or ineffective do you think the FDNS-IO 
(Fraud Detection and National Security Immigration Officer) position is 
in identifying or verifying fraud? 

Very effective (percent): 17; 
Moderately effective (percent): 32; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 14; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 8; 
Very ineffective (percent): 10; 
Don't know (percent): 20; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

Q49. What, if anything, would make the FDNS-IO position more effective? 

Q50. To what extent are you encouraged to or discouraged from formally 
referring cases to your FDNS-IO (i.e., completing a fraud referral 
sheet) when you suspect fraud? 

Very encouraged (percent): 30; 
Moderately encouraged (percent): 20; 
Neither encouraged nor discouraged (percent): 21; 
Moderately discouraged (percent): 14; 
Very discouraged (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

Q51. What, if anything, prevents or limits you from referring cases to 
your FDNS-IO? 

Q52. Is there also a Fraud Prevention Coordinator in your office? 

Yes (percent): 85; 
No (percent): 7; 
Don't know (percent): 8; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

Q53. Overall, how effective or ineffective is the Fraud Prevention 
Coordinator position in identifying fraud? [Where Q52 is "Yes"] 

Very effective (percent): 17; 
Moderately effective (percent): 30; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 13; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 9; 
Very ineffective (percent): 11; 
Don't know (percent): 20; 
Number of respondents: 143. 

Q54. What, if anything, would make the Fraud Prevention Coordinator 
position more effective? 

Q55. When you have suspected or identified fraud during the past year, 
in how many of these cases do you think the asylum seeker was knowingly 
involved in the fraud? 

All or almost all of these cases (percent): 45; 
Most of these cases (percent): 27; 
About half of these cases (percent): 5; 
Some of these cases (percent): 16; 
None or almost none of these cases (percent): 0; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

Q56. How much, if at all, do you think each of the following possible 
changes are needed to help you identify fraud in the affirmative asylum 
cases you adjudicate? 

a. Additional FDNS-IO(s) in your office; 
Greatly needed (percent): 37; 
Moderately needed (percent): 19; 
Slightly needed (percent): 8; 
Not at all needed (percent): 24; 
Don't know (percent): 13; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

b. Additional Fraud Prevention Coordinator(s) in your office; 
Greatly needed (percent): 24; 
Moderately needed (percent): 25; 
Slightly needed (percent): 8; 
Not at all needed (percent): 27; 
Don't know (percent): 16; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

c. Additional Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL)-trained staff in your 
office; 
Greatly needed (percent): 68; 
Moderately needed (percent): 17; 
Slightly needed (percent): 5; 
Not at all needed (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

d. Having two or more asylum officers participate in interviews; 
Greatly needed (percent): 25; 
Moderately needed (percent): 9; 
Slightly needed (percent): 13; 
Not at all needed (percent): 40; 
Don't know (percent): 13; 
Number of respondents: 165. 

e. Scanning all I-589s and using software to identify boilerplates and 
trends; 
Greatly needed (percent): 61; 
Moderately needed (percent): 16; 
Slightly needed (percent): 11; 
Not at all needed (percent): 7; 
Don't know (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 165. 

Q57. What else do you think can be done to help you better identify 
whether or not fraud exists in the cases you adjudicate? 

Q58. What else do you think can be done to deter or cut down on fraud 
in affirmative asylum cases? 

Country Conditions: 

Q59. How useful to your country condition research is each of the 
following sources of information? 

a. Information submitted by the applicant; 
Very useful (percent): 14; 
Moderately useful (percent): 22; 
Slightly useful (percent): 45; 
Not at all useful (percent): 19; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

b. Your own research done on prior case(s); 
Very useful (percent): 75; 
Moderately useful (percent): 20; 
Slightly useful (percent): 4; 
Not at all useful (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

c. Information available through the Resource Information Center (RIC), 
including Asylum Virtual Library; 
Very useful (percent): 34; 
Moderately useful (percent): 32; 
Slightly useful (percent): 28; 
Not at all useful (percent): 3; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

d. Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices and International Religious Freedom reports; 
Very useful (percent): 58; 
Moderately useful (percent): 34; 
Slightly useful (percent): 8; 
Not at all useful (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

e. Department of State's Profiles of Asylum Claims and Country 
Conditions; 
Very useful (percent): 42; 
Moderately useful (percent): 28; 
Slightly useful (percent): 13; 
Not at all useful (percent): 2; 
Don't know (percent): 15; 
Number of respondents: 166. 

f. Department of State's fraud summary reports; 
Very useful (percent): 25; 
Moderately useful (percent): 26; 
Slightly useful (percent): 20; 
Not at all useful (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 24; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

g. Other; 
Very useful (percent): 74; 
Moderately useful (percent): 9; 
Slightly useful (percent): 9; 
Not at all useful (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 9; 
Number of respondents: 46. 

Q60. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you that you have 
sufficient tools for doing country condition research? 

Very satisfied (percent): 29; 
Moderately satisfied (percent): 50; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 10; 
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 8; 
Very dissatisfied (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

Q61. What, if anything, do you think can be done to help you better 
conduct country condition research? 

Q62. How useful do you think each of the following types of case- 
specific information would be in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases? 

a. Entire visa application in addition to what is available in CCD; 
Very useful (percent): 74; 
Moderately useful (percent): 17; 
Slightly useful (percent): 4; 
Not at all useful (percent): 2; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

b. Department of State advisory opinion; 
Very useful (percent): 42; 
Moderately useful (percent): 21; 
Slightly useful (percent): 15; 
Not at all useful (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 9; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

c. Overseas employment records or verification; 
Very useful (percent): 70; 
Moderately useful (percent): 15; 
Slightly useful (percent): 10; 
Not at all useful (percent): 2; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 171. 

d. Overseas medical records or verification; 
Very useful (percent): 69; 
Moderately useful (percent): 18; 
Slightly useful (percent): 8; 
Not at all useful (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

e. Other; 
Very useful (percent): 72; 
Moderately useful (percent): 4; 
Slightly useful (percent): 0; 
Not at all useful (percent): 2; 
Don't know (percent): 21; 
Number of respondents: 47. 

Q63. Think about the affirmative asylum cases that you adjudicated in 
the past year. In how many of these cases did you need, but did not 
have, the following case-specific information? 

a. Entire visa application in addition to what is available in CCD; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 30; 
Most cases (percent): 16; 
About half the cases (percent): 9; 
Some cases (percent): 26; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 13; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

b. Department of State advisory opinion; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 22; 
Most cases (percent): 6; 
About half the cases (percent): 6; 
Some cases (percent): 19; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 32; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 15; 
Number of respondents: 162. 

c. Employment records or verification; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 29; 
Most cases (percent): 13; 
About half the cases (percent): 8; 
Some cases (percent): 24; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 23; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 168. 

d. Medical records or verification; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 31; 
Most cases (percent): 14; 
About half the cases (percent): 8; 
Some cases (percent): 24; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 19; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

e. Other; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 43; 
Most cases (percent): 11; 
About half the cases (percent): 3; 
Some cases (percent): 3; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 14; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 26; 
Number of respondents: 35. 

Q64. How well do you understand the process(es) used in your office for 
requesting overseas verification (e.g., employment or medical records 
or verification)? 

Greatly understand (percent): 11; 
Moderately understand (percent): 15; 
Slightly understand (percent): 14; 
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 60; 
Number of respondents: 164. 

Q65. How, if at all, do you think the process(es) could be improved for 
requesting and obtaining overseas verification? 

Workload: 

Q66. How easy or difficult is it for you to manage your workload? 

Very easy (percent): 8; 
Moderately easy (percent): 6; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 15; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 35; 
Very difficult (percent): 34; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

Q67. Please briefly explain why it is difficult for you to manage your 
workload. 

Q68. What can be done to help you and other asylum officers better 
manage the workload? 

Q69. How much time do you think you need, on average, to complete an 
affirmative asylum case in a manner consistent with the procedures 
manual and training? (Number of respondents is 189.) 

3 hours or less; Percent: 10.
About 4 hours; Percent: 15.
About 5 hours; Percent: 21.
About 6 hours; Percent: 22.
About 7 hours; Percent: 4.
About 8 hours; Percent: 8.
More than 8 hours; Percent: 3.
Unable to estimate; Percent: 7. 

Q70. If you feel you currently have insufficient time, how do you 
manage to complete your assigned cases? 

Q71. Over the past year, in about how many cases, if any, did 
productivity or timeliness standards hinder your ability to properly 
adjudicate affirmative asylum cases in accordance with standard 
procedures and the law? 

a. Productivity standards; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 20; 
Most cases (percent): 12; 
About half the cases (percent): 11; 
Some cases (percent): 29; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 23; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 160. 

b. Timeliness standards; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 21; 
Most cases (percent): 13; 
About half the cases (percent): 13; 
Some cases (percent): 31; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 17; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 163. 

Decision Making: 

Q72. Overall, when you think about the out-of-status affirmative asylum 
cases you adjudicated during the past year, would you say that it has 
been easier for you to grant asylum or to refer a case to an 
immigration judge? 

Much easier to grant asylum (percent): 13; 
Generally easier to grant asylum (percent): 14; 
No easier to grant than to refer (percent): 54; 
Generally easier to refer (percent): 10; 
Much easier to refer (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 164. 

Q73. If you found that it was easier to decide a case in a particular 
way for out-of-status applicants, please explain why. 

Q74. Overall, when you think about the in-status affirmative asylum 
cases you adjudicated during the past year, would you say that it has 
been easier for you to grant asylum or to issue a notice of intent to 
deny (NOID)? 

Much easier to grant asylum (percent): 25; 
Generally easier to grant asylum (percent): 16; 
No easier to grant than to issue a NOID (percent): 50; 
Generally easier to issue a NOID (percent): 4; 
Much easier to issue a NOID (percent): 2; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 161. 

Q75. If you found that it was easier to decide a case in a particular 
way for in-status applicants, please explain why. 

Q76. Are there any factors, other than the merits of the asylum case, 
that influence your decisions? 

Yes (percent): 38; 
No (percent): 58; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 162. 

Q77. Please explain what these factors are and the circumstances in 
which they arise. 

Q78. Think about the affirmative asylum cases in which you granted 
asylum during the past year. In about how many of these cases did you 
grant asylum to an applicant who met the legal standard, even though 
you did not believe the applicant's claim? 

All of almost all of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 7; 
Most of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 9; 
About half of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 11; 
Some of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 45; 
None or almost none of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 
24; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

Q79. In such cases, why did you grant asylum? Q80. In general, how 
effective or ineffective is having supervisory asylum officers review 
100 percent of affirmative asylum decisions in accomplishing each of 
the following objectives? 

a. Improving the quality of decisions; 
Very effective (percent): 22; 
Moderately effective (percent): 31; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 21; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 11; 
Very ineffective (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

b. Promoting consistency in decisionmaking; 
Very effective (percent): 18; 
Moderately effective (percent): 19; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 21; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 11; 
Very ineffective (percent): 27; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

c. Ensuring compliance with procedures; 
Very effective (percent): 33; 
Moderately effective (percent): 40; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 9; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 6; 
Very ineffective (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

Q81. Thinking about your current supervisor, how often would you say 
that supervisory review of your affirmative asylum cases: 

a. resulted in your decision being returned to you for substantive 
correction?; 
Always or almost always (percent): 5; 
Most of the time (percent): 1; 
About half of the time (percent): 4; 
Some of the time (percent): 34; 
Never or almost never (percent): 55; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 167. 

b. changed the outcome of your decision from a grant to a referral or 
denial?; 
Always or almost always (percent): 4; 
Most of the time (percent): 1; 
About half of the time (percent): 2; 
Some of the time (percent): 25; 
Never or almost never (percent): 67; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

c. changed the outcome of your decision from a denial or referral to a 
grant?; 
Always or almost always (percent): 2; 
Most of the time (percent): 2; 
About half of the time (percent): 0; 
Some of the time (percent): 26; 
Never or almost never (percent): 68; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 169. 

Q82. How often has the decision you reached in an affirmative asylum 
case been influenced by your perception of how your current supervisor 
would like you to decide the case? 

Always or almost always (percent): 9; 
Most of the time (percent): 10; 
About half of the time (percent): 8; 
Some of the time (percent): 28; 
Never or almost never (percent): 44; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 170. 

Q83. In cases, if any, where your decision was influenced by your 
perception of what your supervisor wanted, in which of the following 
ways did you tend to make the decision? 

Granted asylum rather than referred or issued a NOID (percent): 25; 
Referred or issued a NOID rather than granted asylum (percent): 21; 
No more likely to decide one way or the other (percent): 28; 
Not applicable (percent): 24; Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 163. 

[End of table] 

Closing: 

Q84. Please provide any additional comments or ideas you have for 
improving the quality of the asylum process or adjudications within 
USCIS. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum Officers: 

We sent our Web-based survey to all supervisory asylum officers who 
were in their position at the end of fiscal year 2006. We received 43 
responses from supervisory asylum officers, resulting in a 77 percent 
response rate. To ensure survey respondents had recent knowledge about 
the issues our survey explored, 3 of the 43 respondents were directed 
to not complete the rest of survey because their responses to initial 
questions indicated that, over the past year, they were not a first- 
line supervisor responsible for reviewing asylum officer decisions or 
had reviewed no, or almost no, asylum decisions. Although 40 
supervisory asylum officers completed the survey, the number answering 
any particular question may be lower, depending on how many chose to 
answer any given question. In addition, for certain questions, 
respondents were instructed to skip particular questions based on their 
responses to previous questions. Each question includes the number of 
supervisory asylum officers responding to it. 

Our survey was comprised of closed-and open-ended questions. In this 
appendix, we include all the survey questions and aggregate results of 
responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information 
on responses provided to the open-ended questions. For a more detailed 
discussion of our survey methodology see appendix IV. 

Background: 

Q1. How long have you been a supervisory asylum officer? (In years): 

Mean: 6; 
Median: 5; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 16; 
Number of respondents: 43. 

Q2. How long have you been a supervisory asylum officer with the office 
you are assigned to currently? (In years): 

Mean: 6; 
Median: 5; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 16; 
Number of respondents: 42. 

Q3. Currently, how many asylum officers do you directly supervise? 

Mean: 5; 
Median: 5; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 9; 
Number of respondents: 43. 

Q4. Over the past year, did your responsibilities include being a first-
line supervisor responsible for reviewing asylum officer decisions? 

Yes (percent): 98; 
No (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 43. 

Q5. Over the past year, about how many of the decisions you reviewed 
were affirmative asylum decisions? 

All or almost all decisions (percent): 33; 
Most decisions (percent): 38; 
About half the decisions (percent): 21; 
Some decisions (percent): 2; 
No or almost no decisions (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 42. 

Supervisory Asylum Officer Responsibilities: 

Q6. How easy or difficult is it for you to carry out each of the 
following responsibilities in the time available? 

a. Supervise subordinates; Very easy (percent): 0; 
Moderately easy (percent): 13; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 50; 
Very difficult (percent): 18; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

b. Evaluate the overall performance of asylum officers you supervise; 
Very easy (percent): 0; 
Moderately easy (percent): 15; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 8; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 48; 
Very difficult (percent): 30; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

c. Assess asylum officers' productivity and timely case completion; 
Very easy (percent): 5; 
Moderately easy (percent): 18; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 26; 
Very difficult (percent): 33; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

d. Observe and provide feedback on an average of one interview per 
month for each asylum officer you supervise; 
Very easy (percent): 0; 
Moderately easy (percent): 13; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 10; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 35; 
Very difficult (percent): 43; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

e. Evaluate 24 written decisions per year for each of the asylum 
officers you supervise; 
Very easy (percent): 0; 
Moderately easy (percent): 8; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 48; 
Very difficult (percent): 23; 
Not applicable (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

f. Review 100 percent of written decisions of the asylum officers you 
supervise; 
Very easy (percent): 0; 
Moderately easy (percent): 13; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 15; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 40; 
Very difficult (percent): 33; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

g. Assess the legal analysis of the written decisions you review; 
Very easy (percent): 5; 
Moderately easy (percent): 28; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 43; 
Very difficult (percent): 8; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

h. Identify emerging trends in fraud; 
Very easy (percent): 3; 
Moderately easy (percent): 18; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 26; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 23; 
Very difficult (percent): 31; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

i. Assess training needs of asylum officers you supervise; 
Very easy (percent): 10; 
Moderately easy (percent): 23; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 31; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 23; 
Very difficult (percent): 13; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

j. Stay current with asylum regulations, case law, and procedures; 
Very easy (percent): 3; 
Moderately easy (percent): 20; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 30; 
Very difficult (percent): 30; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

k. Stay current with country conditions; 
Very easy (percent): 0; 
Moderately easy (percent): 18; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 25; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 40; 
Very difficult (percent): 18; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

l. Perform collateral duties, as assigned to you; 
Very easy (percent): 3; 
Moderately easy (percent): 5; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 13; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 35; 
Very difficult (percent): 45; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

m. Manage your own workload; 
Very easy (percent): 0; 
Moderately easy (percent): 5; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 25; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 35; 
Very difficult (percent): 35; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Q7. How inherently easy or difficult do you consider each of the 
following responsibilities without regard for the time available to 
carry them out? 

a. Supervise subordinates; 
Very easy (percent): 10; 
Moderately easy (percent): 33; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 23; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 20; 
Very difficult (percent): 15; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

b. Evaluate the overall performance of asylum officers you supervise; 
Very easy (percent): 13; 
Moderately easy (percent): 38; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 23; 
Very difficult (percent): 8; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

c. Assess asylum officers' productivity and timely case completion; 
Very easy (percent): 18; 
Moderately easy (percent): 38; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 18; 
Very difficult (percent): 8; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

d. Observe and provide feedback on an average of one interview per 
month for each asylum officer you supervise; 
Very easy (percent): 20; 
Moderately easy (percent): 38; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 18; 
Very difficult (percent): 5; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

e. Evaluate 24 written decisions per year for each of the asylum 
officers you supervise; 
Very easy (percent): 20; 
Moderately easy (percent): 40; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 13; 
Very difficult (percent): 8; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

f. Review 100 percent of written decisions of the asylum officers you 
supervise; 
Very easy (percent): 23; 
Moderately easy (percent): 30; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 18; 
Very difficult (percent): 10; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

g. Assess the legal analysis of the written decisions you review; 
Very easy (percent): 28; 
Moderately easy (percent): 30; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 23; 
Very difficult (percent): 3; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

h. Identify emerging trends in fraud; 
Very easy (percent): 10; 
Moderately easy (percent): 33; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 21; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 23; 
Very difficult (percent): 13; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

i. Assess training needs of asylum officers you supervise; 
Very easy (percent): 26; 
Moderately easy (percent): 31; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 26; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 15; 
Very difficult (percent): 3; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

j. Stay current with asylum regulations, case law, and procedures; 
Very easy (percent): 10; 
Moderately easy (percent): 35; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 25; 
Very difficult (percent): 13; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

k. Stay current with country conditions; 
Very easy (percent): 18; 
Moderately easy (percent): 35; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 23; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 18; 
Very difficult (percent): 8; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

l. Perform collateral duties, as assigned to you; 
Very easy (percent): 10; 
Moderately easy (percent): 30; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 28; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 18; 
Very difficult (percent): 15; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

m. Manage your own workload; 
Very easy (percent): 10; 
Moderately easy (percent): 38; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 28; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 10; 
Very difficult (percent): 15; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Q7n. For any of the responsibilities you rated as moderately difficult 
or very difficult in Questions 7a to 7m above, why do you consider them 
difficult? 

Q7o. What other aspects of your job as a supervisor, if any, do you 
consider to be difficult and why? 

Q8. Over the past year, on average, about how many hours per week did 
you spend carrying out collateral duties (e.g., Fraud Prevention 
Coordinator, Collateral Duty Safety Officer)? 

(Number of respondents is 43.) 

Less than 4 hours; Percent: 2.
4 or more hours but less than 8 hours; Percent: 21.
8 or more hours but less than 12 hours; Percent: 19.
12 or more hours but less than 16 hours; Percent: 14.
16 or more hours but less than 20 hours; Percent: 12.
20 or more hours; Percent: 26.
Don't know; Percent: 0. 

Q9. Think about the affirmative asylum decisions you reviewed over the 
past year. About how many of these decisions did you: 

a. return for correction using the Written Decision Evaluation Form?; 
All or almost all of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 3; 
Most of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 3; 
About half of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 13; 
Some of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 66; 
None or almost none of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 8; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 8; 
Number of respondents: 38. 

b. return for correction using the Administrative Tasks Evaluation 
Form?; All or almost all of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 5; 
Most of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 3; 
About half of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 18; 
Some of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 55; 
None or almost none of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 13; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 38. 

c. return without using an evaluation form?; 
All or almost all of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 5; 
Most of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 3; 
About half of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 8; 
Some of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 55; 
None or almost none of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 24; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 38. 

Q10. Of the affirmative asylum decisions you returned to asylum 
officers for correction during the past year using the Written Decision 
Evaluation Form, about how many did you return due to deficiencies in 
the following areas? 

a. Writing style (encompasses the following standards: required 
elements, clear and concise, and accurate and objective); 
All or almost all of the decisions I returned (percent): 0; 
Most of the decisions I returned (percent): 3; 
About half of the decisions I returned (percent): 16; 
Some of the decisions I returned (percent): 47; 
None or almost none of the decisions I returned (percent): 34; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 38. 

b. Legal analysis (encompasses the following standards: credibility, 
harm, nexus, bars, and the one-year filing deadline); 
All or almost all of the decisions I returned (percent): 24; 
Most of the decisions I returned (percent): 18; 
About half of the decisions I returned (percent): 21; 
Some of the decisions I returned (percent): 34; 
None or almost none of the decisions I returned (percent): 3; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 38. 

Q11. Of the affirmative asylum decisions you returned for correction 
during the past year using the Written Decision Evaluation Form, in 
about how many did your review result in asylum officers changing the 
outcome of the case?
All or almost all of the decisions I returned (percent): 5; 
Most of the decisions I returned (percent): 15; 
About half of the decisions I returned (percent): 3; 
Some of the decisions I returned (percent): 51; 
None or almost none of the decisions I returned (percent): 21; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

Q12. In general, how effective or ineffective is having supervisory 
asylum officers review 100 percent of affirmative asylum decisions in 
accomplishing each of the following objectives?
a. Improving the quality of decisions; 
Very effective (percent): 43; Moderately effective (percent): 40; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 10; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 5; 
Very ineffective (percent): 3; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

b. Promoting consistency in decision making; 
Very effective (percent): 30; 
Moderately effective (percent): 43; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 8; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 10; 
Very ineffective (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

c. Ensuring compliance with procedures; 
Very effective (percent): 53; 
Moderately effective (percent): 38; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 10; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 0; 
Very ineffective (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Assignment of Cases to Asylum Officers: 

Q13. How effective or ineffective do you think your office's current 
process is for assigning affirmative asylum cases to officers in: 

a. preventing fraud by asylum officers (e.g., precluding officers from 
arranging to adjudicate particular cases for money or other 
compensation)?; 
Very effective (percent): 68; 
Moderately effective (percent): 15; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 5; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 3; 
Very ineffective (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

b. ensuring equitable distribution of workload among asylum officers?; 
Very effective (percent): 38; 
Moderately effective (percent): 36; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 10; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 10; 
Very ineffective (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

Q14. What, if anything, do you think could be done to improve the 
current process for assigning affirmative asylum cases in your office? 

Q15. In about how many affirmative asylum cases, if any, do you think 
that asylum officers' expertise (e.g., language capability or expertise 
in a particular geographic area) should be considered when affirmative 
asylum cases are assigned to officers? 

All or almost all cases (percent): 3; 
Most cases (percent): 18; 
About half the cases (percent): 5; 
Some cases (percent): 38; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 33; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Asylum Officer Responsibilities: 

Q16. What challenges, if any, have the greatest impact on asylum 
officers' ability to adjudicate affirmative asylum cases in a manner 
consistent with the procedures manual and training? 

Please identify up to 3 challenges--one challenge per response box--and 
answer the following questions for each: 
(a) How would you describe the challenge? 
(b) What are the impacts of this challenge? and; 
(c) What, if anything, would you suggest that the Asylum Division or 
USCIS do to help asylum officers overcome this challenge? 

Q17. In about how many cases, if any, do you think that challenges the 
asylum officers you supervise face hinder their ability to adjudicate 
affirmative asylum cases in a manner consistent with the procedures 
manual and training? 

All or almost all cases (percent): 16; 
Most cases (percent): 26; 
About half the cases (percent): 21; 
Some cases (percent): 34; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 3; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 38. 

Q18. In general, how well or poorly do you think the asylum officers 
you supervise consider each of the following aspects of the one-year 
rule in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases? 

a. Determining whether clear and convincing evidence exists that the 
application was filed within one year of entering the country; 
Very well (percent): 28; 
Moderately well (percent): 53; 
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 13; 
Moderately poorly (percent): 8; 
Very poorly (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

b. Determining whether evidence exists for an exception to the one-year 
rule; 
Very well (percent): 20; 
Moderately well (percent): 58; 
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 13; 
Moderately poorly (percent): 10; 
Very poorly (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

c. Identifying and analyzing country condition information in applying 
the exceptions of the one-year rule; 
Very well (percent): 28; 
Moderately well (percent): 43; 
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 20; 
Moderately poorly (percent): 10; 
Very poorly (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

d. Determining whether the delay in filing was reasonable in light of 
the circumstances; 
Very well (percent): 20; 
Moderately well (percent): 60; 
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 13; 
Moderately poorly (percent): 8; 
Very poorly (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Q19. In general, how well or poorly do you think asylum officers you 
supervise apply each of the following provisions of the REAL ID Act in 
adjudicating affirmative asylum cases? 

a. Determining whether the applicant has established that one of the 
five protected grounds was or will be at least one central reason for 
the persecution; 
Very well (percent): 25; 
Moderately well (percent): 45; 
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 20; 
Moderately poorly (percent): 8; 
Very poorly (percent): 3; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

b. Determining whether the applicant should provide evidence that 
corroborates otherwise credible testimony; 
Very well (percent): 5; 
Moderately well (percent): 50; 
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 23; 
Moderately poorly (percent): 13; 
Very poorly (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

c. Factoring a relevant inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood into a 
credibility determination, even if the inconsistency, inaccuracy, or 
falsehood does not go to the heart of the applicant's claim; 
Very well (percent): 3; 
Moderately well (percent): 50; 
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 25; 
Moderately poorly (percent): 18; 
Very poorly (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Asylum Officer Workload: 

Q20. How much time, on average, do you think asylum officers need to 
complete an affirmative asylum case in a manner consistent with the 
procedures manual and training? 

(Number of respondents is 43.) 

3 hours or less; Percent: 9.
About 4 hours; Percent: 16.
About 5 hours; Percent: 33.
About 6 hours; Percent: 21.
About 7 hours; Percent: 7.
About 8 hours; Percent: 7.
More than 8 hours; Percent: 0.
Unable to estimate; Percent: 0. 

[End of table] 

Q21. How easy or difficult do you think it is for the asylum officers 
you supervise to manage their workload? 

Very easy (percent): 0; 
Moderately easy (percent): 0; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 5; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 55; 
Very difficult (percent): 40; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Q22. What, if anything, can be done to help asylum officers better 
manage their workload? 

Fraud: 

Q23. Overall, how effective or ineffective do you think the FDNS-IO 
(Fraud Detection and National Security Immigration Officer) position is 
in identifying or verifying fraud in affirmative asylum cases? 

Very effective (percent): 15; 
Moderately effective (percent): 35; 
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 13; 
Moderately ineffective (percent): 8; 
Very ineffective (percent): 18; 
Don't know (percent): 13; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Q24. What, if anything, would make the FDNS-IO position more effective? 

Q25. On average, how well or poorly do the asylum officers you 
supervise identify whether or not fraud exists in the affirmative 
asylum cases they adjudicate? 

Very well (percent): 10; 
Moderately well (percent): 31; 
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 38; 
Moderately poorly (percent): 15; 
Very poorly (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

Q26. In about how many of the affirmative asylum decisions you reviewed 
during the past year did asylum officers not complete a fraud referral 
sheet when you thought they should have? 

All or almost all of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 0; 
Most of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 10; 
About half of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 10; 
Some of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 44; 
None or almost none of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 28; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 8; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

Q27. What, if anything, can be done to help asylum officers better 
identify whether or not fraud exists in the cases they adjudicate? 

Q28. What, if anything, do you think can be done to deter or cut down 
on fraud in affirmative asylum cases? 

Country Condition Information: 

Q29. How useful do you think each of the following types of case- 
specific information would be in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases? 

a. Entire visa application in addition to what is available in CCD; 
Very useful (percent): 88; 
Moderately useful (percent): 5; 
Slightly useful (percent): 8; 
Not at all useful (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

b. Department of State advisory opinion; 
Very useful (percent): 28; 
Moderately useful (percent): 25; 
Slightly useful (percent): 33; 
Not at all useful (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 8; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

c. Overseas employment records or verification; 
Very useful (percent): 88; 
Moderately useful (percent): 3; 
Slightly useful (percent): 10; 
Not at all useful (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

d. Overseas medical records or verification; 
Very useful (percent): 85; 
Moderately useful (percent): 8; 
Slightly useful (percent): 8; 
Not at all useful (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

e. Other; 
Very useful (percent): 78; 
Moderately useful (percent): 0; 
Slightly useful (percent): 6; 
Not at all useful (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 17; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Q30. How well do you understand the process(es) used in your office for 
requesting overseas verification (e.g., employment or medical records 
or verification)? 

Greatly understand (percent): 16; 
Moderately understand (percent): 41; 
Slightly understand (percent): 16; 
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 27; 
Number of respondents: 37. 

[End of table] 

Q31. How, if at all, do you think the process(es) could be improved for 
requesting and obtaining overseas verification? 

Training: 

Q32. How much, if at all, do you think asylum officers need additional 
training on the following topics to improve their ability to adjudicate 
affirmative asylum claims? 

a. Asylum process and procedures; 
Greatly need (percent): 32; 
Moderately need (percent): 29; 
Slightly need (percent): 39; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 38. 

b. Conducting identity and security checks (i.e., database queries and 
any related research); 
Greatly need (percent): 23; 
Moderately need (percent): 63; 
Slightly need (percent): 15; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

c. Interpreting the results of identity and security checks; 
Greatly need (percent): 38; 
Moderately need (percent): 50; 
Slightly need (percent): 10; 
Not at all need: 3; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

d. One-year filing deadline; 
Greatly need (percent): 13; 
Moderately need (percent): 30; 
Slightly need (percent): 48; 
Not at all need: 10; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

e. Mandatory bars to asylum; 
Greatly need (percent): 23; 
Moderately need (percent): 50; 
Slightly need (percent): 23; 
Not at all need: 5; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

f. Issues related to national security; 
Greatly need (percent): 33; 
Moderately need (percent): 40; 
Slightly need (percent): 28; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

g. Overall interviewing skills; 
Greatly need (percent): 53; 
Moderately need (percent): 35; 
Slightly need (percent): 13; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

h. Eliciting sufficient information during interviews; 
Greatly need (percent): 58; 
Moderately need (percent): 25; 
Slightly need (percent): 18; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

i. Remaining non-adversarial during interviews; 
Greatly need (percent): 13; 
Moderately need (percent): 35; 
Slightly need (percent): 35; 
Not at all need: 18; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

j. Intercultural communication and other factors that may impede 
communication in the interview; 
Greatly need (percent): 20; 
Moderately need (percent): 28; 
Slightly need (percent): 40; 
Not at all need: 10; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

k. Understanding how stress and trauma may affect the interview; 
Greatly need (percent): 23; 
Moderately need (percent): 33; 
Slightly need (percent): 40; 
Not at all need: 5; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

l. Assessing credibility; 
Greatly need (percent): 50; 
Moderately need (percent): 45; 
Slightly need (percent): 5; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

m. Current trends in fraud; 
Greatly need (percent): 28; 
Moderately need (percent): 65; 
Slightly need (percent): 8; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

n. Identifying fraudulent documents; 
Greatly need (percent): 55; 
Moderately need (percent): 30; 
Slightly need (percent): 13; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

o. Identifying fraud in claim; 
Greatly need (percent): 43; 
Moderately need (percent): 38; 
Slightly need (percent): 18; 
Not at all need: 3; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

p. Identifying interpreter fraud; 
Greatly need (percent): 26; 
Moderately need (percent): 56; 
Slightly need (percent): 13; 
Not at all need: 5; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

q. Identifying preparer fraud; 
Greatly need (percent): 33; 
Moderately need (percent): 48; 
Slightly need (percent): 15; 
Not at all need: 5; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

r. Identifying attorney fraud; 
Greatly need (percent): 33; 
Moderately need (percent): 43; 
Slightly need (percent): 20; 
Not at all need: 5; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

s. Using the Asylum Virtual Library; 
Greatly need (percent): 30; 
Moderately need (percent): 45; 
Slightly need (percent): 25; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

t. Other country condition research methods; 
Greatly need (percent): 23; 
Moderately need (percent): 48; 
Slightly need (percent): 28; 
Not at all need: 3; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

u. Country condition updates; 
Greatly need (percent): 23; 
Moderately need (percent): 44; 
Slightly need (percent): 31; 
Not at all need: 3; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

v. Applying country condition information; 
Greatly need (percent): 15; 
Moderately need (percent): 59; 
Slightly need (percent): 23; 
Not at all need: 3; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

w. U.S. asylum law (e.g., case law, changes in statute and 
regulations); 
Greatly need (percent): 35; 
Moderately need (percent): 43; 
Slightly need (percent): 23; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

x. Conducting legal research; 
Greatly need (percent): 33; 
Moderately need (percent): 38; 
Slightly need (percent): 28; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 39. 

y. Applying the REAL ID Act; 
Greatly need (percent): 35; 
Moderately need (percent): 55; 
Slightly need (percent): 10; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

z. Writing decisions; 
Greatly need (percent): 25; 
Moderately need (percent): 45; 
Slightly need (percent): 30; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

aa. Time management; 
Greatly need (percent): 65; 
Moderately need (percent): 20; 
Slightly need (percent): 15; 
Not at all need: 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Q33. Are there topics, other than those listed in the previous 
question, that you think should be addressed through training for 
asylum officers? 

Yes (percent): 22; 
No (percent): 44; 
Don't know (percent): 34; 
Number of respondents: 32. 

Q34. What other topic(s) should be addressed through training for 
asylum officers? 

Q35. Have you attended the Asylum Division's 2-week Supervisory Asylum 
Officer's Training Course? 

Yes (percent): 65; 
No (percent): 35; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Q36. Overall, how well or poorly did the Asylum Division's 2-week 
Supervisory Asylum Officer's Training Course prepare you for reviewing 
asylum officer decisions? [Where Q35 is "Yes"] 

Very well (percent): 36; 
Moderately well (percent): 20; 
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 32; 
Moderately poorly (percent): 4; 
Very poorly (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

Q37. Do you think the Asylum Division's 2-week Supervisory Asylum 
Officer's Training Course needs to be improved in any of the following 
areas to help you better carry out your duties as a supervisory asylum 
officer? [Where Q35 is "Yes"] 

a. Providing feedback on asylum officer written decisions; 
Yes (percent): 54; 
No (percent): 42; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

b. Providing feedback on asylum officer interviews; 
Yes (percent): 42; 
No (percent): 54; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

c. Analyzing credibility; 
Yes (percent): 50; 
No (percent): 46; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

d. Understanding concepts of burden of proof; 
Yes (percent): 42; 
No (percent): 54; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

e. Identifying and analyzing mandatory bars to asylum; 
Yes (percent): 38; 
No (percent): 58; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

f. Analyzing nexus to a protected characteristic; 
Yes (percent): 33; 
No (percent): 63; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

g. Analyzing whether harm rises to the level of persecution; 
Yes (percent): 25; 
No (percent): 71; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

h. Understanding and contributing to Asylum Division efforts to combat 
asylum fraud; 
Yes (percent): 52; 
No (percent): 39; 
Don't know (percent): 9; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

i. Analyzing the one-year filing deadline requirement and exceptions; 
Yes (percent): 29; 
No (percent): 67; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

Q38. As a supervisor, is there any additional training that you think 
should be provided to improve your ability to do your job or contribute 
to the Asylum Program? 

Closing: 

Q39. Please provide any additional comments or ideas you have for 
improving the quality of the asylum process or adjudications within 
USCIS. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges: 

We sent our Web-based survey to all immigration judges who were in 
their position at the end of fiscal year 2006. We received 160 
responses from immigration judges, resulting in a 77 percent response 
rate. To ensure survey respondents had recent knowledge about the 
issues our survey explored, 1 of the 160 respondents was directed to 
not complete the rest of survey because his or her response to an 
initial question indicated that the immigration judge had heard no, or 
almost no, asylum cases over the past year. Although 159 immigration 
judges completed the survey, the number answering any particular 
question may be lower, depending on how many chose to answer any given 
question. In addition, for certain questions, respondents were 
instructed to skip particular questions based on their responses to 
previous questions. Each question includes the number of asylum 
officers responding to it. 

Our survey was comprised of closed-and open-ended questions. In this 
appendix, we include all the survey questions and aggregate results of 
responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information 
on responses provided to the open-ended questions. For a more detailed 
discussion of our survey methodology see appendix IV. 

Background: 

Q1. How many years have you served as a United States Immigration 
Judge? (In years): 

Mean: 11; 
Median: 12; 
Minimum: 1; 
Maximum: 27; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

Q2. Of the cases you have heard during the past year, about how many 
would you say were asylum cases? 

All or almost all cases (percent): 4; 
Most cases (percent): 39; 
About half the cases (percent): 36; 
Some cases (percent): 20; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 160. 

Q3. Which of the following statements best describes the detention 
status of asylum applicants who appear before you? 

All or almost all are detained (percent): 14; 
Most are detained (percent): 4; 
About half are detained (percent): 2; 
Some are detained (percent): 26; 
None or almost none are detained (percent): 53; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 159. 

Q4. In general, how would you compare the overall complexity of the 
asylum cases you hear to the other types of immigration cases you hear, 
taking into account factors such as case law, facts of the case, and 
country conditions? 

Asylum cases I hear are generally much more complex than other 
immigration cases. (percent): 48; 
Asylum cases I hear are generally slightly more complex than other 
immigration cases. (percent): 29; 
There is generally no difference between the complexity in the asylum 
cases I hear and other immigration cases. (percent): 14; 
Asylum cases I hear are generally slightly less complex than other 
immigration cases. (percent): 6; 
Asylum cases I hear are generally much less complex than other 
immigration cases. (percent): 2; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

Resources: 

Q5. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the current 
quality of the following resources in helping you carry out your 
judicial responsibilities? 

a. In-house interpreters; 
Very satisfied (percent): 63; 
Moderately satisfied (percent): 28; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 4; 
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 5; 
Very dissatisfied (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 144. 

b. Contracted interpreters: in person; 
Very satisfied (percent): 28; 
Moderately satisfied (percent): 58; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 6; 
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 6; 
Very dissatisfied (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

c. Contracted interpreters: over the phone; 
Very satisfied (percent): 6; 
Moderately satisfied (percent): 36; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 16; 
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 21; 
Very dissatisfied (percent): 18; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

d. Transcription services; 
Very satisfied (percent): 4; 
Moderately satisfied (percent): 16; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 15; 
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 36; 
Very dissatisfied (percent): 28; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 151. 

e. Recording equipment; 
Very satisfied (percent): 0; 
Moderately satisfied (percent): 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 4; 
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 18; 
Very dissatisfied (percent): 72; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

f. Other; 
Very satisfied (percent): 4; 
Moderately satisfied (percent): 0; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 0; 
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 16; 
Very dissatisfied (percent): 76; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

Q6. In your opinion, how much, if at all, would each of the following 
changes improve your ability to carry out your judicial 
responsibilities? 

a. Additional immigration judges in your court; 
Greatly improve (percent): 63; 
Moderately improve (percent): 21; 
Slightly improve (percent): 8; 
Not at all improve (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

b. Additional law clerks in your court; 
Greatly improve (percent): 87; 
Moderately improve (percent): 10; 
Slightly improve (percent): 2; 
Not at all improve (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

c. Additional administrative staff in your court; 
Greatly improve (percent): 45; 
Moderately improve (percent): 32; 
Slightly improve (percent): 16; 
Not at all improve (percent): 6; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

d. Additional on-bench reference materials; 
Greatly improve (percent): 29; 
Moderately improve (percent): 37; 
Slightly improve (percent): 24; 
Not at all improve (percent): 10; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

e. Standardized decision templates; 
Greatly improve (percent): 24; 
Moderately improve (percent): 30; 
Slightly improve (percent): 23; 
Not at all improve (percent): 23; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 151. 

f. Updates to the current Immigration Judge Benchbook; 
Greatly improve (percent): 23; 
Moderately improve (percent): 32; 
Slightly improve (percent): 28; 
Not at all improve (percent): 15; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 151. 

g. Written transcripts of your proceedings before you make a decision; 
Greatly improve (percent): 53; 
Moderately improve (percent): 18; 
Slightly improve (percent): 13; 
Not at all improve (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 151. 

h. Digital courtroom recording equipment;
Greatly improve (percent): 73; 
Moderately improve (percent): 10; 
Slightly improve (percent): 4; 
Not at all improve (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 13; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

i. Access to Asylum Program's Virtual Library (formerly Resource 
Information Center); 
Greatly improve (percent): 30; 
Moderately improve (percent): 38; 
Slightly improve (percent): 13; 
Not at all improve (percent): 7; 
Don't know (percent): 12; 
Number of respondents: 151. 

j. Other; 
Greatly improve (percent): 90; 
Moderately improve (percent): 3; 
Slightly improve (percent): 0; 
Not at all improve (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 31. 

Country Conditions: 

Q7. In your opinion, how useful is each of the following sources of 
country conditions information in helping you render decisions in 
asylum cases? 

a. Country conditions information contained in the asylum applicant's 
file (from the Asylum Office); 
Very useful (percent): 18; 
Moderately useful (percent): 29; 
Slightly useful (percent): 24; 
Not at all useful (percent): 10; 
Little or no experience (percent): 19; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

b. Country conditions information submitted by the government attorney 
(DHS Assistant Chief Counsel); 
Very useful (percent): 32; 
Moderately useful (percent): 46; 
Slightly useful (percent): 15; 
Not at all useful (percent): 2; 
Little or no experience (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

c. Country conditions information submitted by the asylum applicant 
during proceedings; 
Very useful (percent): 32; 
Moderately useful (percent): 47; 
Slightly useful (percent): 19; 
Not at all useful (percent): 1; 
Little or no experience (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

d. EOIR Virtual Law Library; 
Very useful (percent): 39; 
Moderately useful (percent): 36; 
Slightly useful (percent): 14; 
Not at all useful (percent): 4; 
Little or no experience (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

e. Department of State Web site; 
Very useful (percent): 19; 
Moderately useful (percent): 39; 
Slightly useful (percent): 20; 
Not at all useful (percent): 3; 
Little or no experience (percent): 19; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

f. Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices and International Religious Freedom reports; 
Very useful (percent): 52; 
Moderately useful (percent): 35; 
Slightly useful (percent): 12; 
Not at all useful (percent): 2; 
Little or no experience (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

g. Department of State's Profiles of Asylum Claims and Country 
Conditions; 
Very useful (percent): 50; 
Moderately useful (percent): 31; 
Slightly useful (percent): 15; 
Not at all useful (percent): 4; 
Little or no experience (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

h. Department of State's fraud summary reports; 
Very useful (percent): 22; 
Moderately useful (percent): 14; 
Slightly useful (percent): 14; 
Not at all useful (percent): 6; 
Little or no experience (percent): 45; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

i. Specific responses to inquiries you made to the Department of 
State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; 
Very useful (percent): 36; 
Moderately useful (percent): 7; 
Slightly useful (percent): 5; 
Not at all useful (percent): 10; 
Little or no experience (percent): 42; 
Number of respondents: 149. 

j. A law clerk's research; 
Very useful (percent): 63; 
Moderately useful (percent): 17; 
Slightly useful (percent): 6; 
Not at all useful (percent): 1; 
Little or no experience (percent): 14; 
Number of respondents: 153. 

k. Your own research; 
Very useful (percent): 68; 
Moderately useful (percent): 22; 
Slightly useful (percent): 2; 
Not at all useful (percent): 1; 
Little or no experience (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 149. 

l. Other; 
Very useful (percent): 75; 
Moderately useful (percent): 10; 
Slightly useful (percent): 0; 
Not at all useful (percent): 0; 
Little or no experience (percent): 15; 
Number of respondents: 20. 

Q8. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the tools you 
currently have for doing country conditions research? 

Very satisfied (percent): 10; 
Moderately satisfied (percent): 39; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 17; 
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 24; 
Very dissatisfied (percent): 9; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

Assistance from Other Organizations: 

Q9. How useful do you think each of the following types of case- 
specific information would be in rendering your decisions in asylum 
cases? 

a. Visa application; 
Very useful (percent): 61; 
Moderately useful (percent): 23; 
Slightly useful (percent): 10; 
Not at all useful (percent): 3; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

b. Document verification from the Forensic Document Laboratory; 
Very useful (percent): 86; 
Moderately useful (percent): 10; 
Slightly useful (percent): 3; 
Not at all useful (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

c. Overseas medical document or verification; 
Very useful (percent): 83; 
Moderately useful (percent): 9; 
Slightly useful (percent): 6; 
Not at all useful (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

d. Overseas employment document or verification; 
Very useful (percent): 69; 
Moderately useful (percent): 17; 
Slightly useful (percent): 10; 
Not at all useful (percent): 2; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

e. Overseas investigation; 
Very useful (percent): 86; 
Moderately useful (percent): 7; 
Slightly useful (percent): 4; 
Not at all useful (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

f. Other case-specific information or services; 
Very useful (percent): 78; 
Moderately useful (percent): 10; 
Slightly useful (percent): 2; 
Not at all useful (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 10; 
Number of respondents: 49. 

Q10. In about how many of the asylum cases you heard during the past 
year did you need, but did not have, any of the following case-specific 
information? 

a. Visa application; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 25; 
Most cases (percent): 14; 
About half the cases (percent): 6; 
Some cases (percent): 26;
None or almost no cases (percent): 23; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 153. 

b. Document verification from the Forensic Document Laboratory; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 19; 
Most cases (percent): 24; 
About half the cases (percent): 15; 
Some cases (percent): 27; 
None or almost no cases (percent): 13; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

c. Overseas medical document or verification; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 24; 
Most cases (percent): 17; 
About half the cases (percent): 15; 
Some cases (percent): 27; 
None or almost no cases (percent): 14; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 153. 

d. Overseas employment document or verification; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 26; 
Most cases (percent): 13; 
About half the cases (percent): 9; 
Some cases (percent): 24; 
None or almost no cases (percent): 25; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 152. 

e. Overseas investigation; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 32; 
Most cases (percent): 19; 
About half the cases (percent): 8; 
Some cases (percent): 19; 
None or almost no cases (percent): 19; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

f. Other case-specific information or services; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 38; 
Most cases (percent): 9; 
About half the cases (percent): 6; 
Some cases (percent): 6; 
None or almost no cases (percent): 22; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 19; 
Number of respondents: 32. 

Q11. Thinking about your decision-making process in asylum cases, how 
useful do you think it would be to receive the following information if 
it were available? 

a. Asylum officer's written decision; 
Very useful (percent): 28; 
Moderately useful (percent): 25; 
Slightly useful (percent): 30; 
Not at all useful (percent): 16; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

b. Asylum officer's interview write-up;
Very useful (percent): 25; 
Moderately useful (percent): 32; 
Slightly useful (percent): 30; 
Not at all useful (percent): 11; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

c. Asylum officer's notes; 
Very useful (percent): 24; 
Moderately useful (percent): 28; 
Slightly useful (percent): 29; 
Not at all useful (percent): 18; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

d. Transcripts of the asylum interview; 
Very useful (percent): 61; 
Moderately useful (percent): 22; 
Slightly useful (percent): 11; 
Not at all useful (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

e. Recordings of the asylum interview; 
Very useful (percent): 39; 
Moderately useful (percent): 14; 
Slightly useful (percent): 18; 
Not at all useful (percent): 25; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

Q12. What additional information, if any, would be useful to you in 
rendering decisions in asylum cases? 

Professional Development: 

Q13. How much, if at all, has each of the following professional 
development activities enhanced your ability to adjudicate asylum 
cases? 

a. Attending National Judicial College (training for new immigration 
judges); 
Greatly enhanced (percent): 27; 
Moderately enhanced (percent): 17; 
Slightly enhanced (percent): 13; 
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 8; 
Little or no experience (percent): 35; 
Number of respondents: 136. 

b. Observing an experienced immigration judge in another court; 
Greatly enhanced (percent): 30; 
Moderately enhanced (percent): 33; 
Slightly enhanced (percent): 15; 
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 5; 
Little or no experience (percent): 17; 
Number of respondents: 149. 

c. Being mentored by an experienced immigration judge; 
Greatly enhanced (percent): 33; 
Moderately enhanced (percent): 27; 
Slightly enhanced (percent): 15; 
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 6; 
Little or no experience (percent): 20; 
Number of respondents: 143. 

d. Mentoring a new immigration judge; 
Greatly enhanced (percent): 18; 
Moderately enhanced (percent): 23; 
Slightly enhanced (percent): 12; 
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 7; 
Little or no experience (percent): 40; 
Number of respondents: 146. 

e. Attending national conferences for immigration judges in person; 
Greatly enhanced (percent): 51; 
Moderately enhanced (percent): 29; 
Slightly enhanced (percent): 12; 
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 8; 
Little or no experience (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

f. Attending national conferences for immigration judges through 
telephone, videoconference, tapes or CDs; 
Greatly enhanced (percent): 3; 
Moderately enhanced (percent): 12; 
Slightly enhanced (percent): 37; 
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 38; 
Little or no experience (percent): 10; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

g. Attending a national conference panel on the REAL ID Act; 
Greatly enhanced (percent): 21; 
Moderately enhanced (percent): 17; 
Slightly enhanced (percent): 6; 
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 9; 
Little or no experience (percent): 47; 
Number of respondents: 141. 

h. Receiving monthly updates on immigration law developments; 
Greatly enhanced (percent): 46; 
Moderately enhanced (percent): 41; 
Slightly enhanced (percent): 12; 
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 0; 
Little or no experience (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

i. Informal meetings with other immigration judges; 
Greatly enhanced (percent): 54; 
Moderately enhanced (percent): 31; 
Slightly enhanced (percent): 6; 
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 3; 
Little or no experience (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

j. Other professional development opportunities; 
Greatly enhanced (percent): 60; 
Moderately enhanced (percent): 10; 
Slightly enhanced (percent): 0; 
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 0; 
Little or no experience (percent): 30; 
Number of respondents: 40. 

Q14. How much, if at all, do you need additional professional 
development or training in the following areas to enhance your ability 
to adjudicate asylum cases? 

a. Assessing credibility; 
Greatly needed (percent): 23; 
Moderately needed (percent): 36; 
Slightly needed (percent): 24; 
Not at all needed (percent): 15; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

b. Identifying fraud; 
Greatly needed (percent): 43; 
Moderately needed (percent): 30; 
Slightly needed (percent): 16; 
Not at all needed (percent): 8; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 152. 

c. U.S. asylum law (e.g., changes in statute and regulations, BIA and 
circuit court decisions); 
Greatly needed (percent): 19; 
Moderately needed (percent): 35; 
Slightly needed (percent): 31; 
Not at all needed (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 155. 

d. One-year rule; 
Greatly needed (percent): 5; 
Moderately needed (percent): 11; 
Slightly needed (percent): 36; 
Not at all needed (percent): 46; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

e. Rendering an oral decision; 
Greatly needed (percent): 8; 
Moderately needed (percent): 23; 
Slightly needed (percent): 31; 
Not at all needed (percent): 36; 
Don't know (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

f. Rendering a written decision; 
Greatly needed (percent): 6; 
Moderately needed (percent): 17; 
Slightly needed (percent): 29; 
Not at all needed (percent): 45; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

g. Time management training; 
Greatly needed (percent): 12; 
Moderately needed (percent): 18; 
Slightly needed (percent): 23; 
Not at all needed (percent): 43; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

h. Sensitivity and cultural awareness training; 
Greatly needed (percent): 8; 
Moderately needed (percent): 19; 
Slightly needed (percent): 36; 
Not at all needed (percent): 34; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

i. Non-governmental training and conferences; 
Greatly needed (percent): 20; 
Moderately needed (percent): 18; 
Slightly needed (percent): 29; 
Not at all needed (percent): 16; 
Don't know (percent): 16; 
Number of respondents: 153. 

j. Inter-governmental agency conferences (DHS, State); 
Greatly needed (percent): 26;
Moderately needed (percent): 29; 
Slightly needed (percent): 21; 
Not at all needed (percent): 12; 
Don't know (percent): 13; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

k. Observing how other immigration judges handle asylum cases in their 
courtrooms; 
Greatly needed (percent): 17; 
Moderately needed (percent): 29; 
Slightly needed (percent): 27; 
Not at all needed (percent): 22; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

l. Informal meetings with other immigration judges; 
Greatly needed (percent): 36; 
Moderately needed (percent): 39; 
Slightly needed (percent): 15; 
Not at all needed (percent): 5; 
Don't know (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

m. Detail opportunities at Board of Immigration Appeals; 
Greatly needed (percent): 37; 
Moderately needed (percent): 25; 
Slightly needed (percent): 9; 
Not at all needed (percent): 19; 
Don't know (percent): 10; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

n. Additional continuing education on asylum issues; 
Greatly needed (percent): 41; 
Moderately needed (percent): 35; 
Slightly needed (percent): 17; 
Not at all needed (percent): 4; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

o. Other; 
Greatly needed (percent): 70; 
Moderately needed (percent): 5; 
Slightly needed (percent): 0;
Not at all needed (percent): 0; 
Don't know (percent): 25;
Number of respondents: 20. 

Caseload: 

Q15. Think about your allocated administrative time (time off the 
bench). Over the past year, about what portion of that time, on 
average, did you use to hear cases? 

All or almost all of that time (percent): 41; 
Most of that time (percent): 17; 
About half of that time (percent): 10; 
Some of that time (percent): 17; 
None or almost none of that time (percent): 14; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

Q16. On average, about how many hours do you think you need each week 
to complete the work you do off the bench (e.g., manage your caseload, 
stay current with case law, evaluate motions, and keep up with 
administrative tasks)? 

Mean: 11; 
Median: 10; 
Minimum: 4; 
Maximum: 50; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

Q17. How much does each of the following factors help or hinder your 
ability to manage your caseload? 

a. Requirements for case completion goals; 
Greatly help (percent): 3; 
Somewhat help (percent): 6; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 18; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 24; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 49; 
Little or no experience (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

b. Time requirements for expedited asylum cases; 
Greatly help (percent): 3; 
Somewhat help (percent): 6; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 21; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 34; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 35; 
Little or no experience (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

c. Deadlines for older cases awaiting adjudication; 
Greatly help (percent): 3; 
Somewhat help (percent): 9; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 18; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 24; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 42; 
Little or no experience (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

d. Applicants withdrawing applications for asylum; 
Greatly help (percent): 24; 
Somewhat help (percent): 25; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 31; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 8; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 2; 
Little or no experience (percent): 11; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

e. Applicants who have representation; 
Greatly help (percent): 65; 
Somewhat help (percent): 21; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 11; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 3; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 1; 
Little or no experience (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

f. Grouping cases by interpreters; 
Greatly help (percent): 18; 
Somewhat help (percent): 30; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 27; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 8; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 4; 
Little or no experience (percent): 13; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

g. Serving as a visiting judge in another immigration court; 
Greatly help (percent): 6; 
Somewhat help (percent): 13; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 23; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 20; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 16; 
Little or no experience (percent): 23; 
Number of respondents: 153. 

h. Having a visiting immigration judge on detail in your court; 
Greatly help (percent): 17; 
Somewhat help (percent): 39; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 26; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 4; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 0; 
Little or no experience (percent): 13; 
Number of respondents: 150. 

i. Having immigration judges from other courts hear cases via 
videoconference; 
Greatly help (percent): 11; 
Somewhat help (percent): 29; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 24; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 4; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 1; 
Little or no experience (percent): 32; 
Number of respondents: 152. 

j. Waiting for DHS to complete background checks; 
Greatly help (percent): 1; 
Somewhat help (percent): 1; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 14; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 40; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 42; 
Little or no experience (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

k. Waiting for DHS to obtain forensic documents; 
Greatly help (percent): 3; 
Somewhat help (percent): 3; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 10; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 37; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 42; 
Little or no experience (percent): 6; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

l. Applicants seeking to change venue without a valid basis; 
Greatly help (percent): 1; 
Somewhat help (percent): 0; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 44; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 26; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 18; 
Little or no experience (percent): 12; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

m. Double booking cases; 
Greatly help (percent): 7; 
Somewhat help (percent): 16; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 15; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 21; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 23; 
Little or no experience (percent): 19; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

n. Other; 
Greatly help (percent): 5; 
Somewhat help (percent): 5; 
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 0; 
Somewhat hinder (percent): 14; 
Greatly hinder (percent): 67; 
Little or no experience (percent): 10; 
Number of respondents: 21. 

Credibility and Fraud: 

Q18. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases did you find 
each of the following to be an impediment to assessing credibility? 

a. Lack of documentary evidence; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 19; 
Most cases (percent): 28; 
About half the cases (percent): 23; 
Some cases (percent): 26; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 2; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

b. Insufficient time to prepare for and review cases; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 14; 
Most cases (percent): 16; 
About half the cases (percent): 10; 
Some cases (percent): 35; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 24; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

c. Quality of interpretation in the courtroom; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 1; 
Most cases (percent): 1; 
About half the cases (percent): 6; 
Some cases (percent): 57; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 33; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

d. Lack of document verification from Forensic Document Laboratory; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 15; 
Most cases (percent): 21; 
About half the cases (percent): 9; 
Some cases (percent): 45; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 8; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

e. Lack of document verification from overseas; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 25; 
Most cases (percent): 21; 
About half the cases (percent): 10; 
Some cases (percent): 35; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 5; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

f. Lack of other overseas information on applicants; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 29; 
Most cases (percent): 26; 
About half the cases (percent): 6; 
Some cases (percent): 29; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 6; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

g. Lack of information on country conditions; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 2; 
Most cases (percent): 8; 
About half the cases (percent): 6; 
Some cases (percent): 39; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 41; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

h. Lack of a record from the asylum officer's interview; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 13; 
Most cases (percent): 7; 
About half the cases (percent): 6; 
Some cases (percent): 32; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 37; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 152. 

Q19. What other factors, if any, would you consider to be significant 
impediments to assessing credibility? 

Q20. How familiar are you with EOIR's Fraud and Abuse Program? 

Very familiar (percent): 12; 
Moderately familiar (percent): 26; 
Somewhat familiar (percent): 39; 
Not at all familiar (percent): 20; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

Q21. Of the asylum cases you heard during the past year, about how many 
cases did you refer to EOIR's Fraud and Abuse Program? 

All or almost all cases (percent): 0; 
Most cases (percent): 0; 
About half the cases (percent): 0; 
Some cases (percent): 6; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 94; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

Q22. Overall, how easy or difficult is it for you to identify each of 
the following types of suspected fraud in asylum cases? 

a. Suspected document fraud; 
Very easy (percent): 4; 
Moderately easy (percent): 21; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 16; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 31; 
Very difficult (percent): 25; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

b. Suspected identity fraud; 
Very easy (percent): 1; 
Moderately easy (percent): 16; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 14; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 32; 
Very difficult (percent): 34; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

c. Suspected preparer fraud; 
Very easy (percent): 4; 
Moderately easy (percent): 22; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 15; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 31; 
Very difficult (percent): 26; 
Don't know (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 152. 

d. Suspected fraud in the claim; 
Very easy (percent): 2; 
Moderately easy (percent): 24; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 30; 
Very difficult (percent): 24; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

e. Suspected attorney fraud; 
Very easy (percent): 1; 
Moderately easy (percent): 17; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 15; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 27; 
Very difficult (percent): 39; 
Don't know (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 151. 

f. Other; 
Very easy (percent): 6; 
Moderately easy (percent): 19; 
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 6; 
Moderately difficult (percent): 19; 
Very difficult (percent): 25; 
Don't know (percent): 25; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

Q23. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases would you say 
the following types of suspected fraud presented a challenge for you in 
deciding cases? 

a. Suspected document fraud; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 8; 
Most cases (percent): 14; 
About half the cases (percent): 21; 
Some cases (percent): 50; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 5; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

b. Suspected identity fraud; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 1; 
Most cases (percent): 3; 
About half the cases (percent): 12; 
Some cases (percent): 56; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 23; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

c. Suspected preparer fraud; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 4; 
Most cases (percent): 7; 
About half the cases (percent): 13; 
Some cases (percent): 61; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 11; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 152. 

d. Suspected fraud in the claim; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 6; 
Most cases (percent): 19; 
About half the cases (percent): 29; 
Some cases (percent): 39; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 4; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 3; 
Number of respondents: 154. 

e. Suspected attorney fraud; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 1; 
Most cases (percent): 3; 
About half the cases (percent): 8; 
Some cases (percent): 42; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 39; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 149. 

f. Other; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 0; 
Most cases (percent): 15; 
About half the cases (percent): 31; 
Some cases (percent): 23; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 15; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 15; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Rendering a Decision: 

Q24. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases were you 
satisfied with the level of preparation by the attorneys who appeared 
in your courtroom? 

a. Government attorney (DHS Assistant Chief Counsel); 
All or almost all cases (percent): 4; 
Most cases (percent): 39; 
About half the cases (percent): 30; 
Some cases (percent): 21; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 6; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 155. 

b. Applicant's attorney; 
All or almost all cases (percent): 1; 
Most cases (percent): 22; 
About half the cases (percent): 46; 
Some cases (percent): 30; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 1; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 152. 

Q25. In about how many of the asylum cases you heard during the past 
year, did issues related to the one-year rule (date of entry or 
eligibility for exceptions to the rule) have to be resolved? 

All or almost all cases (percent): 4; 
Most cases (percent): 16; 
About half the cases (percent): 36; 
Some cases (percent): 43; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 2; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

Q26. Think about the cases you heard during the past year in which 
issues related to the one-year rule had to be resolved. On average, 
about how much time did you spend per case adjudicating the issue? 

Less than half an hour (percent): 39; 
At least half an hour but less than 1 hour (percent): 39; 
At least 1 hour but less than 2 hours (percent): 15; 
2 hours or more (percent): 3; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 3; 
Not applicable (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

Q27. Of the cases in which you denied asylum during the past year, 
about how many did you deny solely because you found that the applicant 
was ineligible due to the one-year rule? 

All or almost all cases (percent): 1; 
Most cases (percent): 3; 
About half the cases (percent): 8; 
Some cases (percent): 73; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 10; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 4; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

Q28. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases did you make a 
frivolous application finding? 

All or almost all cases (percent): 0; 
Most cases (percent): 0; 
About half the cases (percent): 0; 
Some cases (percent): 23; 
No or almost no cases (percent): 77; 
Unable to estimate (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

Q29. What, if any, barriers do you face in making a frivolous 
application finding? 

Q30. Overall, do you think the process involved in adjudicating asylum 
cases makes it easier for you to grant asylum or easier to deny asylum? 

Much easier to grant asylum (percent): 25; 
Generally easier to grant asylum (percent): 22; 
No easier to grant than to deny asylum (percent): 42; 
Generally easier to deny asylum (percent): 5; 
Much easier to deny asylum (percent): 1; 
Don't know (percent): 5; 
Number of respondents: 153. 

Q31. If you found that it was easier to decide asylum cases in a 
particular way, what about the process makes it easier to decide cases 
in that way? 

Challenges: 

Q32. How challenging, if at all, do you find each of the following 
aspects of adjudicating asylum cases? 

a. Time limitations; 
Very challenging (percent): 58; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 25; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 13; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 5; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 158. 

b. Managing your caseload; 
Very challenging (percent): 45; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 32; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 17; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 6; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

c. Assessing credibility; 
Very challenging (percent): 49; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 32; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 16; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 3; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

d. Identifying suspected fraud; 
Very challenging (percent): 39; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 32; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 24; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 4; 
Not applicable (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 153. 

e. Verifying fraud; 
Very challenging (percent): 73; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 15; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 9; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 1; 
Not applicable (percent): 2; 
Number of respondents: 151. 

f. Identifying national security risks; 
Very challenging (percent): 43; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 23; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 23; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 3;
Not applicable (percent): 7; 
Number of respondents: 150. 

g. Staying current with case law; 
Very challenging (percent): 19; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 39; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 32; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 10; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

h. Staying current with country conditions; 
Very challenging (percent): 20; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 34; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 38; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 8; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

i. Having to render oral decisions immediately after hearing cases; 
Very challenging (percent): 50; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 21; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 21; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 8; 
Not applicable (percent): 1; 
Number of respondents: 157. 

j. Reserving a decision for later delivery; 
Very challenging (percent): 33; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 27; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 19; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 13; 
Not applicable (percent): 8; 
Number of respondents: 153. 

k. Attorney preparedness; 
Very challenging (percent): 38; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 38; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 19; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 4; 
Not applicable (percent): 0; 
Number of respondents: 156. 

l. Other; 
Very challenging (percent): 83; 
Moderately challenging (percent): 6; 
Somewhat challenging (percent): 0; 
Not at all challenging (percent): 0;
Not applicable (percent): 11; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Q33. From the following list, which three do you see as posing the 
greatest challenge to you in adjudicating asylum cases? Please check no 
more than three boxes. 

a. Time limitations; Number of respondents: 83.
b. Managing your caseload; Number of respondents: 44.
c. Assessing credibility; Number of respondents: 76.
d. Identifying suspected fraud; Number of respondents: 19.
e. Verifying fraud; Number of respondents: 52.
f. Identifying national security risks; Number of respondents: 14.
g. Staying current with case law; Number of respondents: 16.
h. Staying current with country conditions; Number of respondents: 11.
i. Having to render oral decisions immediately after hearing cases; 
Number of respondents: 61.
j. Reserving a decision for later delivery; Number of respondents: 16.
k. Attorney preparedness; Number of respondents: 53.
l. Other; Number of respondents: 8. 

Closing Comments: 

Q34. Please provide any additional comments or ideas you have for 
improving the asylum process. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit Methodology: 

Survey Methodology: 

To corroborate information and pursue issues we identified during our 
research on the U.S. Asylum System and our interviews with agency 
officials, we developed and deployed three different Web-based surveys 
to (1) asylum officers, (2) supervisory asylum officers, and (3) 
immigration judges. We asked asylum officers about their views on areas 
including training, conducting identity and security checks, 
interviewing and assessing credibility, assessing fraud, country- 
condition information, workload, and decision making. We asked 
supervisory asylum officers about their views on areas including their 
own responsibilities and training as well as asylum officers' 
responsibilities and training. We asked immigration judges about their 
views on areas including professional development, credibility and 
fraud in asylum cases, rendering an asylum decision, and caseload. 

Survey Development: 

GAO social science survey specialists along with GAO staff 
knowledgeable about asylum adjudications developed the three survey 
instruments. We sent drafts of the asylum officer survey and 
supervisory asylum officer survey to Asylum Division officials for 
preliminary reviews to ensure that our questions were clear and 
unambiguous, used clear terminology and appropriate response options, 
and that the survey was comprehensive and unbiased. We sent a draft of 
the survey of immigration judges to Executive Office for Immigration 
Review (EOIR) officials and Assistant Chief Immigration Judges for the 
same purpose. We also asked for and received comments from the asylum 
officer representative to the American Federation of Government 
Employees on the draft asylum officer survey and representatives from 
the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) on the draft 
immigration judge survey. We considered comments and suggestions from 
all parties and made revisions where we thought they were warranted. 

We conducted pretests of the three surveys to ensure that the questions 
were clear and concise, and refined the instruments based on feedback 
we received. We pretested the asylum officer survey with eight asylum 
officers with a range of experience levels in five different Asylum 
Offices. We conducted these pretests using a combination of in-person, 
telephone, and Web-based approaches. We conducted pretests of the 
supervisory asylum officer survey with three supervisors with varying 
levels of experience in three different Asylum Offices; all were 
conducted by telephone and one used a Web-based approach. We conducted 
pretests of the immigration judge survey by telephone with three 
immigration judges in three different immigration courts. 

Identification of Survey Respondents: 

To develop mailing lists for the asylum officer and supervisory asylum 
officer surveys, we obtained from the Asylum Division the name, Asylum 
Office, and e-mail address of every onboard asylum officer and 
supervisor along with the date each officer began his or her position. 
Similarly, to develop a mailing list for the immigration judge survey, 
we obtained from EOIR the name, immigration court, and e-mail address 
of every onboard immigration judge along with the date each immigration 
judge began his or her position. We excluded from this list Assistant 
Chief Immigration Judges because we provided them with the opportunity 
to review a survey draft and provide comments. To ensure that we 
solicited information only from those who had some basic level of 
experience on which to draw, we sent surveys only to individuals who 
had been in their position for at least approximately 6 months--that 
is, they were on board as of September 30, 2006, the end of fiscal year 
2006. Two hundred fifty-six asylum officers, 56 supervisory asylum 
officers, and 207 immigration judges met the criterion. 

Survey-Distribution Timeframes and Response Rates: 

Asylum officer survey. We announced our upcoming Web-based survey of 
asylum officers on March 1, 2007, and e-mailed asylum officers a cover 
letter and link to the survey on March 5. The Chief of the Asylum 
Division also informed Asylum Office staff of our survey efforts and 
encouraged asylum officers to participate, noting that participation 
was voluntary, and directed Asylum Office management to provide all 
asylum officers with 2 hours of administrative time during which they 
could elect to complete the survey. During the period from March 5 
through April 30 (the final deadline for completing the survey), we e- 
mailed reminder notices five times to asylum officers who had not 
responded, encouraging them to participate. On April 24, we followed up 
by telephone with 17 asylum officers--all those who had begun, but had 
not finished, the survey. We received 189 responses from asylum 
officers, resulting in a 74 percent response rate. Of the 189 
respondents, 171 said that, over the past year, their primary 
responsibilities included adjudicating asylum cases and that they had 
adjudicated at least some affirmative asylum cases, which was the focus 
of our review. The remaining 18 asylum officers who said their primary 
responsibilities did not include adjudicating asylum cases or they had 
not adjudicated at least some asylum cases over the past year were 
directed to not complete the rest of survey. 

Supervisory asylum officer survey. With respect to the Web-based survey 
of supervisory asylum officers, we announced the survey on March 12, 
2007, and e-mailed supervisory asylum officers a cover letter and link 
to the survey on March 14. As with the asylum officer survey, the Chief 
of the Asylum Division also informed Asylum Office staff of our survey 
efforts and encouraged supervisors to participate, noting that 
participation was voluntary, and directed Asylum Office management to 
provide all supervisors with 2 hours of administrative time during 
which they could elect to complete the survey. During the period from 
March 12 through May 6 (the final deadline for completing the survey), 
we e-mailed reminder notices four times to supervisory asylum officers 
who had not responded, encouraging them to participate. 

On April 24, we followed up by telephone with 3 supervisory asylum 
officers--all those who had begun, but had not finished, the survey. We 
received 43 responses from supervisory asylum officers, resulting in a 
77 percent response rate. Of the 43 respondents, 40 said that they had 
reviewed at least some affirmative asylum decisions over the past year. 
The remaining 3 supervisory asylum officers who said they reviewed no 
or almost no asylum cases over the past year were directed to not 
complete the rest of the survey. Percentages for data from relatively 
small populations, such as supervisor asylum officers, may convey a 
level of precision that can be misleading because they can change 
greatly with minor changes in the data. Thus, in reporting supervisory 
asylum officers' survey responses throughout this report, we generally 
identified the number in addition to the percentage of supervisory 
asylum officers who responded to a question in a particular way. 

Immigration judge survey. We announced our upcoming Web-based survey of 
immigration judges on May 25, 2007, and e-mailed a cover letter and 
link to the survey on May 30. The President of NAIJ encouraged 
immigration judges to participate. During the period from May 30 
through July 29 (the final deadline for completing the survey), we e- 
mailed reminder notices five times to immigration judges who had not 
responded, encouraging them to participate. From July 12 through July 
16, 2007, we followed up by telephone with the 65 immigration judges 
who had not completed the survey. We surveyed all 207 immigration 
judges who were on board as of September 30, 2006, and received 160 
responses for a 77 percent response rate. Of the 160 respondents, 159 
said that they had heard at least some asylum cases over the past year. 
The one immigration judge who had not adjudicated any asylum cases over 
the past year was directed to not complete the rest of the survey. 

Survey Analysis: 

In analyzing the three surveys, we computed descriptive statistics on 
the closed-ended survey responses and conducted a systematic content 
analysis on selected open-ended survey responses. (See app. I, app. II, 
and app. III, respectively, for aggregate responses to the asylum 
officer, supervisory asylum officer, and immigration judge survey). 

To analyze the content of responses of asylum officers and supervisors 
to particular open-ended questions, two staff members independently 
reviewed all the responses and identified preliminary response 
categories, and then mutually agreed on response categories. They 
subsequently reviewed responses, again, and independently placed them 
into appropriate categories. Any discrepancies were discussed and 
resolved, with a third team member being consulted when needed. 

Because these were not sample surveys, but rather a census of all the 
relevant groups, there are no sampling errors. However, the practical 
difficulties of conducting any surveys may introduce nonsampling 
errors. For example, differences in how a particular question was 
interpreted or the sources of information available to respondents can 
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included 
steps in both the data-collection and data-analysis stages for the 
purposes of minimizing such nonsampling errors. As indicated above, 
social science survey specialists designed the draft questionnaires in 
close collaboration with GAO subject matter experts, and drafts were 
reviewed for accuracy by agency officials. Versions of the 
questionnaire were pretested with several members of each of the 
populations. Since this was a Web-based survey, respondents entered 
their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, eliminating 
the need to key data into a database, minimizing error. We examined the 
survey results and performed computer analyses to identify 
inconsistencies and other indications of error. A second, independent 
analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses. 

Site Visits: 

To gain a better understanding of asylum adjudications, we visited 
three of the Asylum Division's eight Asylum Offices--Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, and New York. The views we obtained at these three offices 
may not be generalized to all eight Asylum Offices. However, since we 
selected these offices based on their diversity in size (based on the 
number of asylum officers and cases adjudicated), percentage of cases 
granted asylum, and geographic location, they provided us with an 
overview and perspective of the asylum process as well as potential 
challenges facing asylum officers. At each of the three offices, we 
conducted semistructured interviews with the Asylum Office Director and 
Deputy Director, a Quality Assurance and Training Coordinator, and the 
Fraud Detection and National Security Immigration Officer; and at two 
of the three offices, we interviewed the Fraud Prevention Coordinator. 
[Footnote 76] 

In addition, we interviewed a total of 14 asylum officers and 5 
supervisory asylum officers among the three offices. At one office, we 
asked the Director to identify 2 asylum officers and 1 supervisory 
asylum officer for us to interview. At the other two offices, we 
selected asylum officers and supervisors using a random sampling 
approach that we stratified based on experience levels. The composition 
of each office in terms of number and experience levels of officers and 
staff availability affected who we were able to interview. Between 
these two offices, we interviewed 12 asylum officers (5 officers with 
more than 8 years of experience who we categorized as "very 
experienced," 4 officers with between 2 and 8 years of experience who 
we categorized as "experienced," and 3 officers with less than 2 years 
of experience who we categorized as "less experienced"). At each of 
these 2 offices, we interviewed 1 "very experienced" and 1 
"experienced" supervisory asylum officer. Between the 2 offices, we 
also observed a total of 14 interviews that asylum officers conducted 
with asylum applicants. In addition, we observed a local training 
session at each of these 2 offices. 

To obtain an additional perspective on factors that may affect asylum 
officers' and immigration judges' adjudication of asylum cases, we 
interviewed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant 
Chief Counsels (also known as ICE trial attorneys) associated with 
immigration courts in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, and 
New York City, New York who were identified by an ICE Deputy Chief 
Counsel as having experience with asylum cases. As the government's 
representative in removal proceedings, ICE trial attorneys see asylum 
cases that come before the immigration court. In Los Angeles and San 
Francisco, we met with a Deputy Chief Counsel and a total of three ICE 
trial attorneys; in New York City, we met with four ICE trial 
attorneys. To further our understanding of factors affecting 
immigration judges' asylum adjudications, we visited the Los Angeles 
immigration court where we interviewed four immigration judges and 
observed court proceedings, which included initial and merit hearings 
on asylum cases. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2005 through 
September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Asylum Adjudication Process: 

Asylum Adjudication Process within DHS: 

The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) affirmative asylum process 
generally consists of several steps. The alien initiates the process by 
filing an asylum application at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) Service Center,[Footnote 77] where the case is entered 
into the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System and some background, 
identity, and security checks are automatically initiated. Service 
Center personnel send automatically generated notices to the 
applicants, requiring them to appear for biometrics collection, 
including fingerprints, at a USCIS Application Support Center prior to 
the asylum interview. Service Center personnel send the applicant's 
file to the Asylum Office that has jurisdiction over the applicant's 
place of residence. Within 21 days of filing, the Asylum Office sends 
an automatically generated interview notice to the applicant. The 
Asylum Office is allocated at least 15 days to complete the 
adjudication after conducting the interview. Generally, cases are 
randomly assigned to asylum officers who are required by law to conduct 
interviews with applicants within 45 days of the application filing 
date in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The purpose of the 
interview is to verify the applicant's identity, establish the 
applicant's alienage, evaluate the applicant's credibility, and 
determine whether the applicant is eligible for asylum. Applicants are 
permitted, but not required, to bring their own attorney or accredited 
representative to the interview. If the applicant is not fluent in 
English, the applicant is required to bring an interpreter to the 
asylum interview. Within 4 days of the interview, the asylum officer is 
to prepare the written decision and submit it to a supervisory asylum 
officer.[Footnote 78] The supervisor is to review the decision to 
ensure the asylum officer's decision is supported by law and that 
procedures are properly followed. The supervisor either signs or 
returns it to the asylum officer for correction. Applicants interviewed 
at Asylum Offices are required to return to the asylum office 2 weeks 
after the interview and within 60 days of filing the asylum application 
to receive the asylum decision. 

Asylum Adjudication Process within DOJ: 

Within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review's (EOIR) asylum process generally consists of the 
following steps. The applicant is to appear before an immigration judge 
for an initial hearing, during which the immigration judge is to, among 
other things, (a) ensure that the applicant understands the contents of 
the Notice to Appear, (b) provide the applicant information on 
available free of charge or low-cost legal representation in the area, 
and (c) schedule a subsequent date to hear the merits of the asylum 
claim. At that time, the immigration judge also hears the pleadings of 
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) trial attorney and 
the applicant. Prior to the merits hearing, the ICE trial attorney, and 
the applicant or the applicant's representative must submit 
applications, exhibits, motions, a witness list, and criminal history 
to the immigration court, if applicable. The ICE trial attorney and the 
applicant, or the applicant's representative, may also submit 
prehearing briefs or statements for the immigration judge to review in 
advance of the hearing to narrow the legal issues. In some cases 
attorneys, or the immigration judge, may request a prehearing 
conference for reasons including narrowing the issues or exchanging 
information. A merits hearing is then held, during which the applicant 
(or the applicant's representative) and an ICE trial attorney present 
the case before the immigration judge by generally making opening 
statements, presenting witnesses and evidence to the immigration judge, 
cross-examining, and making closing statements.[Footnote 79] 

The immigration judge may participate in the questioning of the 
applicant or other witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the 
immigration judge is to issue a decision that includes the facts that 
were found to be true, an accurate statement of the law, factors that 
were considered, and the weight that was given to the evidence 
presented (including the credibility of witnesses). If the applicant or 
ICE disagrees with the immigration judge's decision, either party may 
appeal it to EOIR's Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) within 30 days. 
If the BIA ruling is adverse to the applicant, the applicant generally 
may file a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals.[Footnote 
80] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Asylum Division and EOIR Caseload and Staffing 
Information: 

Asylum Division Caseload and Staffing Levels: 

During fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Asylum Division received 
391,763 new cases, of which 63 percent consisted of asylum receipts-- 
that is, new or reopened asylum applications. As shown in figure 13, 
asylum officers' annual caseload declined during this period, and 
completions declined from fiscal year 2005 through 2007. [Footnote 81] 

Figure 13: Asylum Division Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years 
2002-2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked multiple vertical bar graph depicting the 
following data (number of cases in thousands): 

Fiscal year: 2002; 	
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 64.6; 
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 304.0; 
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear): 
28.0; 
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 67.4; 
Completions: Asylum completions: 86.4; 
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 33.1. 
	
Fiscal year: 2003; 		
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 47; 
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 262.1; 
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear): 
18.4; 
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 48.5; 
Completions: Asylum completions: 90.7; 
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 36.8. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 		
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 34.2; 
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 184.6; 
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear): 
20.8; 
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 25.9; 
Completions: Asylum completions: 108.9; 
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 43.6. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 		
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 32.9; 
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 98.4; 
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear): 
32.8; 
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 27.9; 
Completions: Asylum completions: 116.5; 
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 31.1. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 		
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 36.5; 
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 55.0; 
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear): 
28.2; 
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 12.0; 
Completions: Asylum completions: 76.6; 
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 45.4. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 	
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 33.4; 
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 27.1; 
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear): 
15.1; 
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 6.5; 
Completions: Asylum completions: 56.6; 
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable 
fear): 22.3. 

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Division data. 

[End of figure] 

During this same period, authorized staffing for asylum officers ranged 
from a high of 332 officers in 2004 to a low of 291 officers in 2007, 
as shown in table 3, although not all asylum officers were considered 
available to conduct adjudications. The Asylum Division projects the 
number of "available asylum officers" by subtracting from authorized 
levels the number of staff designated to conduct overseas refugee 
adjudications and security screening and the number it projects will be 
unavailable due to activities such as training and leave.[Footnote 82] 

During fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Asylum Division reported 
available asylum officers ranged from a high of 232 in 2003 to a low of 
199 in 2005. It reported 163 officers would be available in 2008. The 
Asylum Division may detail asylum officers from one office to another 
to assist offices with high caseloads. 

Table 3: Authorized and Available Staffing Levels for Asylum Officers, 
Fiscal Years 2002-2007: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Authorized asylum officers: 293; 
Available asylum officers: 215. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Authorized asylum officers: 294; 
Available asylum officers: 232. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Authorized asylum officers: 332; 
Available asylum officers: 224. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized asylum officers: 303; 
Available asylum officers: 199. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized asylum officers: 303; 
Available asylum officers: 219. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized asylum officers: 291; 
Available asylum officers: 210. 

Source: Asylum Division. 

[End of table] 

EOIR Immigration Court Caseload and Staffing Levels: 

Immigration court receipts--that is, newly filed and reopened cases-- 
totaled about 1.9 million cases during fiscal years 2002 through 2007, 
of which 22 percent were asylum, and the rest were other types of 
immigration cases. From fiscal years 2002 through fiscal year 2005, 
immigration judges' caseload, which includes receipts and all cases 
still pending from the prior years, increased annually, but began to 
decline in fiscal year 2006 (see fig. 14). Completions increased 
annually from fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and declined in 2007. 
[Footnote 83] 

According to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), 
immigration caseload is expected to increase by a minimum of 25,000 
additional cases by 2008 as a result of current and planned DHS 
initiatives, such as the addition of detention facilities and beds and 
enhanced anti-smuggling programs. 

Figure 14: EOIR Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years 2002-2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked multiple vertical bar graph depicting the 
following data (number of cases in thousands): 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Caseload: All receipts: 290.4; 
Caseload: All pending: 151.2; 
Completions: All completions: 273.8. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Caseload: All receipts: 299.1; 
Caseload: All pending: 168.5; 
Completions: All completions: 296.1. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Caseload: All receipts: 299.7; 
Caseload: All pending: 171.6; 
Completions: All completions: 302.0. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Caseload: All receipts: 370.0; 
Caseload: All pending: 169.3; 
Completions: All completions: 352.8. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Caseload: All receipts: 351.3; 
Caseload: All pending: 186.5; 
Completions: All completions: 366.0. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Caseload: All receipts: 334.4; 
Caseload: All pending: 171.7; 
Completions: All completions: 328.3. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of figure] 

As shown in table 4, from fiscal years 2002 through fiscal year 2007, 
the number of authorized immigration judges increased from 216 in 
fiscal year 2002 to 251 in fiscal year 2007, with the most significant 
increase occurring in fiscal year 2007. At the same time, the number of 
immigration judges who were on board remained fairly constant, except 
for an increase in fiscal year 2006. 

Table 4: Authorized and Onboard Staffing Levels for Immigration Judges, 
Fiscal Years 2002-2007: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Authorized immigration judges: 216; 
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 214. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Authorized immigration judges: 223; 
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 217. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Authorized immigration judges: 224; 
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 215. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Authorized immigration judges: 225; 
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 212. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Authorized immigration judges: 230; 
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 225. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Authorized immigration judges: 251; 
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 216. 

Source: EOIR. 

[A] Data on onboard immigration judges are as of October 1 of each 
fiscal year except for 2003. EOIR was unable to provide October 1 data 
for fiscal year 2003 and provided March 2003 data instead. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Evi Rezmovic, Assistant 
Director, and Lori Weiss, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. 
Tracey Cross, Foster Kerrison, Maria Mercado, Catherine Kim, Yvette 
Gutierrez-Thomas, Jason Campbell, and Alana Miller made significant 
contributions to the work. Michele Fejfar, Elizabeth Wood, and Carolyn 
Boyce assisted with design, methodology, and data analysis. Lara Kaskie 
and Richard Ascarate provided assistance in report preparation, Frances 
Cook provided legal support, Tom Jessor provided expertise on 
immigration court issues, and Karen Burke and Etana Finkler developed 
the report's graphics. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The laws governing asylum protection were first established in 
statute with the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96- 
212, § 201, 94 Stat. 102, 102-06 (1980) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 
1101(a)(42), 1157-1159)). The Refugee Act provided, for the first time, 
a U.S. refugee policy that stated that persecuted aliens who are 
present in the United States and who meet the definition of a refugee 
can apply for asylum protection in the United States. The legal 
standard for a refugee and asylee are the same, but noncitizens must 
apply for refugee status from outside the United States, and for asylum 
status from within the United States. The final regulations for 
implementing the Refugee Act of 1980 were issued in 1990. 

[2] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards, issued pursuant to 
the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 
1982 (FMFIA), provide the overall framework for establishing and 
maintaining internal control in the federal government. Also pursuant 
to FMFIA, the Office of Management and Budget issued Circular A-123, 
revised December 21, 2004, to provide the specific requirements for 
assessing the reporting on internal controls. Internal control 
standards and the definition of internal control in Circular A-123 are 
based on GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government. 

[3] Of the 189 asylum officers who responded to the survey, 171 said 
that, over the past year, they had adjudicated at least some asylum 
cases, which is the focus of our review. Similarly, of the 43 
supervisory asylum officers who responded to the survey, 40 said that 
they had reviewed at least some asylum decisions over the past year. 

[4] Of the 160 immigration judges who responded to the survey, 159 said 
that they had heard at least some asylum cases over the past year. 

[5] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: March 
2004). 

[6] GAO, Federal Bankruptcy Judges: Weighted Case Filings as a Measure 
of Judges' Case-Related Workload, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-03-789T] (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2003). 

[7] Asylees can apply for lawful permanent residency 1 year after being 
granted asylum. 

[8] Certain categories of noncitizens are statutorily ineligible for 
asylum even if they can demonstrate past persecution or a fear of 
persecution. The following individuals are ineligible to apply for 
asylum: (1) those who have been in the United States more than 1 year 
without filing for asylum, unless they can demonstrate changed or 
extraordinary circumstances; (2) those previously denied asylum unless 
they can show changed circumstances; and (3) those who may be removed 
to a third country where they would have access to fair asylum 
procedures. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). The following are ineligible for a 
grant of asylum: (1) persecutors of others and certain criminals; (2) 
those who are described in the terrorist grounds of inadmissibility or 
are reasonably regarded as a danger to the security of the United 
States; and (3) individuals who were firmly resettled in a third 
country prior to coming to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A). 

[9] Asylum applicants, unless otherwise eligible, may not apply for 
employment authorization documents until they are granted asylum or 
their asylum application has been pending more than 150 days. 
Applicants are not eligible for employment authorization documents 
until they have been granted asylum or their asylum application has 
been pending for more than 180 days. 

[10] The Asylum Division can take 180 days to process cases that are 
not referred to the immigration courts. According to the Acting Deputy 
Chief of the Asylum Division, cases that typically do not meet the 
Asylum Division's 75 percent goal are cases that require review by 
headquarters or local fraud personnel or cases that require 
coordination with other federal agencies. 

[11] Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C, § 604(a), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009- 
690 to 94. 

[12] Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B, § 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 302, 303. 

[13] Pub. L. No. 105-100, tit. II, § 203, 111 Stat. 2160, 2196-99 
(1997). 

[14] The Asylum Division does not receive any direct appropriations for 
adjudication of asylum applications. Rather, USCIS collects and uses 
fees from the filing of other immigration benefit applications to cover 
adjudication costs, including those associated with asylum and refugee 
applicants. 

[15] The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge is to provide overall 
program direction, articulate policies and procedures, and establish 
priorities for immigration judges in the immigration courts across the 
country. 

[16] The asylum officer must determine whether the applicant met the 
requirement to file the asylum application within 1 year of his or her 
last arrival into the United States and, if not, whether an exception 
to that filing requirement applies. 

[17] The applicant may include as dependents on the asylum application 
his or her spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21 who are 
present in the United States. Decisions apply to the applicant and the 
applicant's dependents if included on the applicant's asylum 
application and the applicant established a qualifying relationship to 
them by a preponderance of evidence. 

[18] The Asylum Office initiates a proceeding to terminate asylum 
status when evidence indicates that one or more grounds for termination 
of asylum status may apply. Grounds for termination include cases in 
which there is a showing of fraud in the alien's application such that 
the applicant was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted. 
Depending on when the applicant filed for asylum, other grounds for 
termination may apply. For applications filed on or after April 1, 
1997, asylum may be terminated when conditions described in section 
208(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act exist, which include, 
for example, the alien no longer meets the definition of a refugee due 
to a fundamental change in circumstances or the alien is a persecutor, 
danger to the security of the United States, inadmissible under 
terrorist grounds, or firmly resettled in another country; or the alien 
was convicted of a particularly serious crime or there are serious 
reasons to believe the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime 
outside the United States. An immigration judge or the BIA may reopen a 
case for the purpose of terminating a grant of asylum by the 
immigration judge or the BIA upon a motion from DHS. 

[19] The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee 
Resettlement administers medical and employment assistance programs for 
refugees and asylees. 

[20] A de novo review means that the immigration judge is to evaluate 
the applicant's claim anew, as the determination the asylum officer 
made in referring the case to immigration court is not binding on the 
immigration judge. 

[21] The grant rate is calculated as the percentage of cases that 
resulted in a grant divided by the total number of cases that resulted 
in a decision (a grant, denial, or referral to an immigration court in 
a case in which the applicant was interviewed). 

[22] According to the Asylum Division, it completed a large number of 
cases during this time period as a result of its plan to eliminate its 
backlog. By fiscal year 2007, the Asylum Division's caseload was 
approximately the same size as the number of cases completed. 

[23] For example, ineligible asylum applicants may qualify for 
withholding or deferral of removal if the immigration judge determines 
that it is more likely than not that the applicant would be tortured if 
removed to the proposed country of removal. However, this form of 
relief does not allow the applicant to apply for lawful permanent 
residency. 

[24] The grant rate is calculated as the percentage of cases that 
resulted in a grant out of the total number of cases that resulted in a 
decision of a grant or denial. 

[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-546G]. 

[26] To be certified, an asylum officer must demonstrate a fundamental 
understanding and knowledge of the principals of asylum adjudications. 
Certification includes, but is not limited to, reading all the AOBTC 
lesson plans, conducting interviews while being observed, and writing 
adjudication assessments. Certification is not a substitute for AOBTC, 
but may be used prepare asylum officers to conduct adjudications on a 
short-term basis while awaiting a scheduled AOBTC. 

[27] When we conducted our survey of supervisory asylum officers during 
March through May 2007, 26 supervisors said they had attended the 
Supervisory Asylum Officer's Training Course, and 14 said they had not. 
According to Asylum Division officials, 13 supervisory asylum officers 
attended this training course when it was offered in August 2007, and 
they anticipated offering the course again in the first half of fiscal 
year 2009. 

[28] Percentages for data from relatively small populations, such as 
supervisory asylum officers, may convey a level of precision that can 
be misleading because they can change greatly with minor changes in the 
data. Therefore, throughout this report, we generally identify the 
number in addition to the percentage of supervisory asylum officers who 
responded to a question in a particular way. 

[29] As part of this training validation (required by the Uniform 
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. pt. 1607), a 
Critical Task Selection Board, generally comprised of subject matter 
experts, a union representative, headquarters staff, and training 
academy personnel, selects critical tasks for the asylum officer 
position and recommends a training location for these tasks. The Asylum 
Division plans to initiate the next validation study in fiscal year 
2009. 

[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[31] According to Asylum Division officials, headquarters personnel 
traveled to every Asylum Office to conduct training on the Asylum 
Virtual Library in May and June 2008. 

[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-546G]. 

[33] The Asylum Division asks six open-ended questions about AOBTC such 
as "What did you like most about the training?" and "What would you 
change about the training?" 

[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[35] Supervisory asylum officers' performance work plans also require 
that they observe the equivalent of one interview each month conducted 
by each asylum officer they supervise. 

[36] We recognize that not all asylum officers are in a position to 
assess whether supervisory review promoted consistency because, for 
example, a newer asylum officer may have worked for only one 
supervisor. 

[37] In three of the Asylum Offices, QA/T work plans also specified the 
number of cases that were to be reviewed. 

[38] In three of the Asylum Offices, QA/T work plans specified the 
number of interviews to be observed. 

[39] Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag, 
"Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication," Stanford Law 
Review, vol. 60, no. 2 (2007), 295-412. 

[40] In addition, we have examined the outcomes of immigration court 
decisions in asylum cases. Our analysis of more than 12 years of EOIR 
data showed that even after we statistically controlled for the effects 
of a number of factors associated with asylum outcomes (e.g., 
applicant’s nationality, time period of asylum decision, 
representation, and immigration judges’ gender and experience), there 
were substantial differences across both immigration courts and 
immigration judges in the likelihood of asylum applicants being granted 
asylum. (GAO, U.S. Asylum System: Significant Variation Existed in 
Asylum Outcomes across Immigration Courts and Judges, GAO-08-940, 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2008)) 

[41] 8 C.F.R. §1003.1(a)(4) allows the Director of EOIR to designate 
immigration judges, retired BIA members, retired immigration judges, 
and administrative law judges employed within, or retired from, EOIR to 
act as temporary BIA members. These provisions offer a mechanism 
through which the department can provide the BIA temporary assistance 
to respond to an unanticipated increase or temporary surge in the 
number, size, or type of cases, and other short-term circumstances that 
might impair the BIA's ability to adjudicate cases in a manner that is 
both timely and fair. 

[42] In 2006, the Attorney General initiated a review of the quality 
and performance of the immigration courts and the BIA. Based on the 
results of the review, the Attorney General directed the implementation 
of 22 new measures, including the improvement of training for new 
immigration judges and the development of a continuing education 
program for veteran immigration judges. 

[43] Four immigration judges in our survey population were appointed in 
September 2006--the same month EOIR implemented changes to its training 
for new immigration judges. 

[44] For courts where only one immigration judge is assigned, 
supervisors are to make arrangements for immigration judges to observe 
an immigration judge in a different court. 

[45] Assistant Chief Immigration Judges have supervisory authority over 
the immigration judges, the court administrators, and judicial law 
clerks. They serve as the principal liaison between the Office of the 
Chief Immigration Judge and the immigration courts. 

[46] The investigation found that fraudulent asylum applications were 
routinely prepared for $2,000 or more and that counterfeit Indonesian 
documents, such as birth certificates and police reports, often were 
provided to support the claims. According to Asylum Division officials, 
the Asylum Division was provided evidence from the investigation, 
examined cases known to be associated with the fraud ring, and 
initiated termination proceedings or other action for cases in which 
benefit eligibility may have been affected. 

[47] Even when asylum officers identify fraud that is relevant to the 
claim, the applicant may still establish eligibility for asylum. In 
cases when applicants submit materially false evidence, asylum officers 
are instructed to give applicants the opportunity to provide an 
explanation. If the applicant provides a reasonable explanation, the 
asylum officer must take it into account in assessing the applicant's 
credibility. For example, an applicant might explain that he or she 
obtained and submitted a fraudulent document to support a story of 
persecution, thinking that asylum would not be granted without 
documentation to support the claim. 

[48] GAO, Border Security: Fraud Risks Complicate State's Ability to 
Manage Diversity Visa Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1174] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2007). 

[49] FDNS planned to conduct six benefit fraud assessments; three had 
been issued as of July 2008. 

[50] The Asylum Office initiates a proceeding to terminate asylum 
status when evidence indicates, for example, that fraud exists in an 
alien's application such that the alien was not eligible for asylum at 
the time asylum was granted. 

[51] The Asylum Division found that most of these applicants had not 
been granted asylum and those granted asylum by the Asylum Division 
later had their asylum status terminated after terrorism investigations 
uncovered asylum fraud by the applicant. The assessment did not contain 
information on whether asylum was terminated for cases granted by 
immigration judges. 

[52] The Asylum Division stated that some of the vulnerabilities it 
identified were outside of its control, such as detaining and removing 
applicants denied asylum, which fall under ICE's jurisdiction. 

[53] Automated controls preclude a final grant of asylum from being 
entered into RAPS until certain security checks have been cleared. 

[54] Several security checks are initiated automatically when the 
applicant's information is entered into RAPS. 

[55] On August 11, 2008, ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal 
Operations deployed a new system—ENFORCE Alien Removal Module—to 
replace DACS. Prior to its deployment, the Asylum Division issued 
revised procedures for using the system in conducting identity and 
security checks, and asylum officers received training on the system. 

[56] Asylum officers do not need to obtain fingerprint results before 
issuing a denial of asylum or referring a case to the immigration 
courts, however, an asylum officer may not issue a grant of asylum 
until fingerprint results have cleared. 

[57] Delays in receiving FBI name check information has been reported 
as a significant problem in immigration benefit programs. According to 
the Asylum Division's Deputy Director, such delays had been problematic 
for asylum adjudicators, but only in relatively few cases compared with 
other immigration benefit types. 

[58] USCIS entered into an agreement with the Department of Citizenship 
and Immigration Canada in 2003 that permits the United States and 
Canada to share asylum-related information on a case-by-case and 
systematic basis subject to confidentiality provisions in existing law. 

[59] Requests for overseas assistance on specific asylum cases are 
directed to USCIS when it has a presence in the requisite location; if 
not, requests are directed to State. USCIS's International Operations 
Division has 30 field offices that are located in embassies and 
consulates in various locations around the world. 

[60] In addition to responding to case-specific requests, State issues 
annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and International 
Religious Freedom Reports, Profiles of Asylum Claims and Country 
Conditions, and fraud summary reports. 

[61] According to the Chief of FDNS, as of August 2008, ICE and USCIS 
were in the final stages of reviewing a new Memorandum of Understanding 
that will no longer refer lower-level (single-scope) cases to ICE. 
Instead these cases will be worked and tracked by USCIS. 

[62] In addition to conducting investigations, ICE also participated in 
some coordinated efforts in various local interagency fraud task forces 
with USCIS, including 17 multiagency Document and Benefit Fraud Task 
Forces led by ICE that were created in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to 
detect and prosecute fraud. 

[63] GAO, Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanctions 
Strategy Could Enhance DHS's Ability to Control Benefit Fraud, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-259] (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 10, 2006). 

[64] There was some variation by office. For example, in five offices, 
61 to 87 percent of asylum officers reported needing about 5 hours or 
more to complete an asylum case. In the other three offices, 50 to 57 
percent of the officers reported that they needed 4 hours or less. 
Survey responses did not provide enough information to explain these 
differences. 

[65] According to Asylum Division officials, beginning with the 2006- 
2007 rating cycle, the standard performance work plan for Asylum Office 
Directors and Deputy Directors hold these officials accountable for 
anti-fraud measures, although each Asylum Office personalizes the work 
plans based on its workload. 

[66] Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, 
Review of the USCIS Benefit Fraud Referral Process, OIG-08-09, (April 
2008). 

[67] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between 
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-488] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
14, 2003). 

[68] Asylum officers generally have 4 hours to adjudicate asylum cases 
over a 4-day period. Extenuating circumstances for exceeding the 4-day 
timeframe include excused leave and other higher-priority 
responsibilities. 

[69] Caseload includes pending and new receipts for asylum, credible 
and reasonable fear, and NACARA cases. An asylum case consists of the 
principal applicant and any dependents listed on the asylum 
application. This is different than EOIR's definition of a case, which 
includes only one individual. 

[70] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-789T]. 

[71] Immigration judges who feel they need more information than is 
provided in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices or Profiles 
of Asylum Claims may make specific requests on an individual case basis 
to State. 

[72] An immigration judge who makes a referral to the Fraud and Abuse 
Program is not required to delay adjudication of the case. 

[73] According to EOIR officials, immigration judges are to schedule 
administrative time, or time off the bench, to adjudicate motions, 
write reserved opinions, meet with the court administrator, or conduct 
legal research. Four hours of administrative time has been the norm 
since 1983. 

[74] GAO, Executive Office for Immigration Review: Caseload Performance 
Reporting Needs Improvement, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-06-771] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11, 2006). 

[75] 8 C.F.R. § 1003.37(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12(a) provide that a 
decision of the immigration judge may be rendered orally or in writing. 

[76] At the third Asylum Office, the Fraud Prevention Coordinator was 
not available during the week we visited. 

[77] Under certain circumstances, aliens can file an asylum application 
directly with an Asylum Office. In such cases, Asylum Office personnel 
carry out the responsibilities otherwise conducted by Service Center 
personnel. 

[78] For decisions that are mailed, asylum officers must submit the 
written decision to a supervisory asylum officer within 10 days. 

[79] The immigration courts provide interpreters for the hearings when 
necessary. 

[80] If DHS disagrees with the BIA's ruling, in rare instances, the 
case may be referred to the Attorney General for review. The Attorney 
General has the authority to overturn the BIA's ruling, and if the 
result is adverse to the alien, the alien may appeal to federal court. 
DHS may not appeal decisions of the BIA or the Attorney General. 

[81] The Asylum Division tracks adjudicated and unadjudicated 
completions. Adjudicated completions consist of cases in which an 
asylum officer has made a decision after interviewing the applicant and 
evaluating the merits of the case. Unadjudicated completions consist of 
cases in which no asylum decision was made on the merits of the case. 
For the purposes of this report, "completions" refers to both 
adjudicated and unadjudicated cases. Pending cases include cases that 
were awaiting completion at the beginning of each fiscal year. 

[82] The Asylum Division reports that asylum officers will be available 
for asylum and NACARA adjudications, credible and reasonable fear 
determinations, and asylum terminations of asylum status proceedings 
during 41 weeks each year. 

[83] Completions include cases that resulted in a decision and other 
completions, such as administrative closures and transfers of cases to 
other courts. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: