Summary
In 2002, GAO reported that immigration benefit fraud was pervasive and significant and the approach to controlling it was fragmented. Experts believe that individuals ineligible for these benefits, including terrorists and criminals, could use fraudulent means to enter or remain in the U.S. You asked that GAO evaluate U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's (USCIS) anti-fraud efforts. This report addresses the questions: (1) What do available data and information indicate regarding the nature and extent of fraud? (2) What actions has USCIS taken to improve its ability to detect fraud? (3) What actions does the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) take to sanction those who commit fraud?
Although the full extent of benefit fraud is unknown, available evidence suggests that it is a serious problem. Several high-profile immigration benefit fraud cases shed light on aspects of its nature--particularly that it is accomplished by submitting fraudulent documents and can be facilitated by white collar and other criminals, with the potential for large profits. USCIS staff denied about 20,000 applications for fraud in fiscal year 2005. USCIS has established a focal point for immigration fraud, outlined a fraud control strategy that relies on the use of automation to detect fraud, and is performing risk assessments to identify the extent and nature of fraud for certain benefits. However, USCIS has not implemented important aspects of internal control standards established by GAO and fraud control best practices identified by leading audit organizations--particularly a comprehensive risk management approach, a mechanism to ensure ongoing monitoring during the course of normal activities, clear communication regarding how to balance multiple objectives, mechanisms to help ensure that staff have access to key information, and performance goals for fraud prevention. DHS does not have a strategy for sanctioning fraud. Best practices advise that a credible sanctions program, which includes a mechanism for evaluating effectiveness, is an integral part of fraud control. Because most immigration benefit fraud is not prosecuted criminally, the principal means of sanctioning it would be administrative penalties. Although immigration law gives DHS the authority to levy administrative penalties, the component of DHS that administers them does not consider them to be cost-effective and does not routinely impose them. However, DHS has not evaluated the costs and benefits of sanctions, including the value of potential deterrence. Without a credible sanctions program, DHS's efforts to deter fraud may be less effective, when applicants perceive little threat of punishment.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change
from "In process" to "Implemented" or "Not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
Richard M. Stana
Government Accountability Office: Homeland Security and Justice
(202) 512-8777
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: In accordance with internal control standards and best practices in the area of fraud control, and in order to enhance USCIS's overall immigration benefit fraud control environment, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Director of USCIS to enhance its risk management approach by (1) expanding its fraud assessment program to cover more immigration application types; (2) fully incorporating threat and consequence assessments into its fraud assessment activities; and (3) using risk analysis to evaluate management alternatives to mitigate identified vulnerabilities.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: In process
Comments: On August 14, 2006, DHS provided a draft 60-day letter to our report that provided USCIS responses to 5 of 6 recommendations. DHS did not provide a final version because it was awaiting the results of a DHS evaluation of the best way to handle a 6th GAO recommendation regarding a cost-benefit analysis of an administrative sanctions program. However, on August 29, 2008, USCIS provided a recommendation status update regarding the use of an enhanced risk management approach. We did not find it fully responsive to our recommendation.
Recommendation: In accordance with internal control standards and best practices in the area of fraud control, and in order to enhance USCIS's overall immigration benefit fraud control environment, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Director of USCIS to implement a mechanism to help USCIS ensure that information about fraud vulnerabilities uncovered during the course of normal operations--by USCIS and related agencies--feeds back into and contributes to changes in policies and procedures when needed to ensure that identified vulnerabilities result in appropriate corrective actions.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: In process
Comments: On August 14, 2006, DHS provided a draft 60-day letter to our report that provided USCIS responses to 5 of 6 recommendations. DHS did not provide a final version because it was awaiting the results of a DHS evaluation of the best way to handle a 6th GAO recommendation regarding a cost-benefit analysis of an administrative sanctions program. However, on August 29, 2008, USCIS provided a recommendation status update about implementing a mechanism to help ensure that information about fraud vulnerabilities uncovered during the course of normal operations feeds back into and contributes to changes in policies and procedures. We did not find it fully responsive to our recommendation.
Recommendation: In accordance with internal control standards and best practices in the area of fraud control, and in order to enhance USCIS's overall immigration benefit fraud control environment, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Director of USCIS to communicate clearly to USCIS adjudicators the importance USCIS's fraud-prevention objectives and how they are to be balanced with service-oriented objectives to help adjudicators ensure that both objectives are supported as they carry out their duties.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: In process
Comments: On August 14, 2006, DHS provided a draft 60-day letter to our report that provided USCIS responses to 5 of 6 recommendations. DHS did not provide a final version because it was awaiting the results of a DHS evaluation of the best way to handle a 6th GAO recommendation regarding a cost-benefit analysis of an administrative sanctions program. However, on August 29, 2008, USCIS provided a recommendation status update regarding the need to clearly communicate to USCIS adjudicators the importance of USCIS fraud prevention objectives and how they are to be balanced with service oriented objectives. We did not find it fully responsive to our recommendation.
Recommendation: In accordance with internal control standards and best practices in the area of fraud control, and in order to enhance USCIS's overall immigration benefit fraud control environment, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Director of USCIS to provide USCIS's adjudicator staff with access to relevant internal and external information that bears on their ability to detect fraud, make correct eligibility determinations, and support the new fraud referral process?particularly ongoing updates regarding fraud trends and other information related to fraud detection.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: In process
Comments: On August 14, 2006, DHS provided a draft 60-day letter to our report that provided USCIS responses to 5 of 6 recommendations. DHS did not provide a final version because it was awaiting the results of a DHS evaluation of the best way to handle a 6th GAO recommendation regarding a cost-benefit analysis of an administrative sanctions program. However, on August 29, 2008, USCIS provided a recommendation status update about providing USCIS's adjudicator staff with access to relevant internal and external information to detect fraud. We did not find it fully responsive to our recommendation.
Recommendation: In accordance with internal control standards and best practices in the area of fraud control, and in order to enhance USCIS's overall immigration benefit fraud control environment, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Director of USCIS to establish output and outcome based performance goals--along with associated measures and targets--to assess the effectiveness of fraud control efforts and provide more complete performance information to guide management decisions about the need for any corrective action to improve the ability to detect fraud.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: In process
Comments: On August 14, 2006, DHS provided a draft 60-day letter to our report that provided USCIS responses to 5 of 6 recommendations. DHS did not provide a final version because it was awaiting the results of a DHS evaluation of the best way to handle a 6th GAO recommendation regarding a cost-benefit analysis of an administrative sanctions program. However, on August 29, 2008, USCIS provided a recommendation status update regarding the establishment of output and outcome based performance goals. We did not find it fully responsive to our recommendation.
Recommendation: In order to enhance DHS's ability to sanction immigration benefit fraud, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Director of USCIS and the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to develop a strategy for implementing a sanctions program that includes mechanisms for assessing its effectiveness and for determining its associated costs and benefits, including its deterrence value.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: In process
Comments: On August 14, 2006, DHS provided a draft 60-day letter to our report that provided USCIS responses to 5 of 6 recommendations. DHS did not provide a final version because it was awaiting the results of a DHS evaluation of the best way to handle this GAO recommendation about conducting a cost-benefit analysis of an administrative sanctions program. DHS has yet to provide the results of its cost-benefit analysis. GAO is awaiting a response from DHS regarding the status of this recommendation, specifically documentation of a cost benefit analysis of an administrative sanctions program.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Border and Transportation Security: Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: In process
Comments: DHS still evaluating how to respond to this recommendation.
