U.S.

Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service

HQISD110/8.2-C
Office of the Executive Associate Commissioner 425 I Street HW
Washington. DC 20536

JUN 2 7 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR THE COMMISSIONER

FROM: Johnny N. Williams

Executive Associate Comr si on
Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT: OIG Request For Response; The Immigration and Naturalization Service's
Contacts With Two September 11 Terrorists: A Review of the INS'
Admissions of Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi, its Processing of Their
Change of Status Applications; and its Efforts to Track Foreign Students in the
United States

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) generally agrees with the
recommendations made in the subject report. The INS was working on a new school and student
control system prior to September 11, and has continued with efforts to improve the control and
tracking of foreign students and the schools authorized for their attendance. The INS has also
expanded its use of the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) to check individuals prior to
the adjudication of any benefit applications and petitions. Specific responses to
recommendations follow.

RECOMMENDATION 1: The INS should consider whether a foreign student program

manager should be appointed to coordinate, and be accountable for, immigration issues affecting
foreign students.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. The INS is in the process of centralizing the student school
issues in the Immigration Services Division. The Executive Associate Commissioner, Field
Operations will have management responsibility. Additionally, a senior field manager is being
assigned as project lead and will be on-board by the end of June 2002.

RECOMMENDATION 2: The INS should review and approve all schools currently
authorized to issue I-20s before allowing the schools access to SEVIS. Given the improbability
that it will be completed by January 2003 (since the required proposed rule change has not yet
been published), the INS should decide soon on an alternative plan, including determining how it
will proceed in January 2003 if schools are not re-certified, a reasonable time schedule for
re-certifying the schools, and an implementation plan for achieving the timetable.
Memorandum for The Commissioner Page 2
Subject: OIG Request For Response; The INS's Contacts With TwoSeptember 11
Terrorists: A Review of the INS' Admissions of Mohamed Atta and
Marwan Alshehhi, its Processing of Their Change of Status Applications;
and its Efforts toTrack Foreign Students in the United States

INS RESPONSE: Concur in Part The INS intends to certify all schools prior to their
enrollment in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). The plan will be
implemented in phases. In phase I, beginning on July 1, 2002, schools that have participated in
the student schools program for the last three years, and are accredited by an agency recognized
by the Department of Education may file an application to enroll in SEVIS on a preliminary
basis.
In phase n (Fall 2002), other schools may apply for SEVIS enrollment. Those schools
will pay a fee with their application, and be subject to a full review including a site visit by a
contract investigator. The RFP for the contract investigators was issued to General Services
Administration (GSA) schedule vendors on June , 2002, and the fee regulation is planned for
issuance this summer.

In phase m, the schools that obtained preliminary enrollment will be subject to the full
review, including a site visit. We believe that the contract resources we are obtaining will be
sufficient to allow us to accomplish school recertification in the required time frames. We will
prioritize this assessment, and evaluate the results, and we will make adjustments where
necessary.

RECOMMENDATION 3: The plan to re-certify all schools prior to implementing

SEVIS must also resolve who will be responsible for conducting the re-certifications, provide
adequate written guidelines on conducting the re-certifications, and provide adequate training to
those responsible for performing the re-certifications and making site visits.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. See response to Recommendation 2 above.

RECOMMENDATION 4: The INS should establish a unit within each district office
responsible for conducting on-site verifications of the IMS-approved schools. Full-time schools
officers will be needed, instead of personnel who have the responsibility as a collateral duty.

INS RESPONSE: Concur in Part The INS is in the process of identifying school
officers for each district office. The student/schools work will be the individual's primary
responsibility and full-time if warranted. However, the INS does not concur with each district
office having the responsibility of conducting on-site verification. See Recommendation 2
above. Training for the District School Officers was held during the week of June 24, 2002.

RECOMMENDATION 5: The INS must continue to monitor and review the schools,
since schools Jose accreditation, change their objectives, and sometimes engage in fraud.
Memorandum for The Commissioner Page 3
Subject: OIG Request For Response; The INS's Contacts With TwoSeptember 11
Terrorists: A Review of the INS' Admissions of Mohamed Atta and
Marwan Alshehhi, its Processing of Their Change of Status Applications;
and its Efforts toTrack Foreign Students in the United States

INS RESPONSE: Concur. INS will conduct an on-going monitoring program that will
be centered around the certification program. Certifications will include contractor site visits as
described above, although the focus of review will change.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The INS should ensure that audits are conducted of approved
schools to determine whether proper internal controls are in place and that data is being entered
into SEVIS completely, accurately, and timely.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. The primary audit mechanism will be the site visit every two
years. In addition, the INS is expecting to provide sufficient analytical support to review the
activities of approved schools and conduct additional audits as necessary.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The INS should decide what office or division will be

responsible for analyzing the data that is collected in SEVIS. To fully use SEVIS's capabilities,
the INS needs to assign personnel and establish policies and procedures to take advantage of this
analytic function.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. See Recommendation 6 above. The responsibilities for this
function will be with the Associate Commissioner for Field Service Operations within the
Immigration Services Division.

RECOMMENDATION 8: To ensure that adequate personnel are available to devote to

re-certifying and monitoring INS-approved schools and foreign students, the INS should
establish fee-based positions funded out of the processing fee that will eventually be charged to
foreign students.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. The INS is about to undertake a student fee study that will
address these concerns. In addition, the school fee will support certification reviews and some
monitoring of the program.

RECOMMENDATION 9: The INS must also develop a plan for training both INS
employees and school employees on how to use SEVIS. The INS should develop a timetable for
implementing training and an implementation plan for carrying out the training.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. The INS has been training school officials around the
country in the use of SEVIS since August 7, 2001. Additionally, training is being developed for
the INS employees that will serve as student liaison personnel at district offices. Initial training
Memorandum for The Commissioner Page 4
Subject: DIG Request For Response; The INS's Contacts With TwoSeptember 11
Terrorists: A Review of the INS' Admissions of Mohamed Atta and
Marwan Alshehhi, its Processing of Their Change of Status Applications;
and its Efforts toTrack Foreign Students in the United States

was conducted at the Missouri Service Center the week of June 24, 2002. The district personnel
received training on SEVIS and adjudication of the 1-17 forms.1

RECOMMENDATION 10: SEVIS cannot work unless the necessary offices and
personnel are connected to SEVIS, including service centers, POEs, district offices, and consular
posts. The INS should devote the resources necessary to ensure that all offices are connected to
and are able to use SEVIS as quickly as possible.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. The INS has aggressive implementation plans to meet all of
these requirements. However, deployment of SEVIS interfaces requires a phased in approach.
The present schedule for the deployment of SEVIS phases is attached.

RECOMMENDATION 11: The INS is proposing regulations that would require visitors
to have declared that they are prospective students at the time they entered the country in order to
be eligible to change their status at a later date. For this regulation to be meaningful, the INS,
working with the State Department, should define "prospective student."

INS RESPONSE: Nonconcur. Although the INS proposed rule does not provide a
specific definition of a prospective student, we believe that it is evident from the language of the
rule that a prospective student is one whose general intent is to pursue full time studies in either
the F or M nonimmigrant visa classifications. The INS and Department of State have operated
with the "prospective student" terminology and concept for decades without difficulty. The INS
will consider adding a definition in the final rule should commenters raise this as a significant
issue.

RECOMMENDATION 12: The INS should decide whether aliens will be required to
submit documentation in support of their assertion that they are prospective students, such as
acceptance letters or offers of scholarships, or whether something less will suffice, such as a
statement that they have not yet applied to any schools but plan to after visiting several.

INS RESPONSE: Concur in Part. The assertion that one is a prospective student is
important, not for the purpose of entry, but at a later date when the individual attempts to change
status to a student status. At that time the service centers will adjudicate the Form 1-539,
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status for change of status with an I-202 issued by

1 Form 1-17, Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Students, Form I-17A, Designated
School Officials and Form I-17B, School System Attachment
2 Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-l) Student Status—For Academic and Language Students or (M-I)
Student Status for Vocational Students.
Memorandum for The Commissioner Page 5
Subject: OIG Request For Response; The INS's Contacts With TwoSeptember 11
Terrorists: A Review of the INS' Admissions of Mohamed Atta and
Marwan Alshehhi, its Processing of Their Change of Status Applications;
and its Efforts toTrack Foreign Students in the United States

the school. By then, the prospective student will have been admitted to a particular school. We
anticipate that a prospective student will be entering on a visitor visa and the Inspector at the
port-of-entry, upon inspection, may make the determination that the application for admission as
a visitor is a prospective student. (Please see attached Standard Operating Procedures for Form I-
539, Change of Status to F, M and J.)

RECOMMENDATION 13: The INS should ensure that change of status adjudicators in
the service centers are aware of how to access the "prospective student" information recorded in
NHS.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. Changes of status adjudicators at all service centers have been given
instruction and training as to how to access the "prospective student" information in NITS. (See
attached SOP).

RECOMMENDATION 14: To increase the effectiveness of its monitoring of and

collecting information about foreign students, the INS should consider whether part-time
students should also be monitored. While we recognize that collecting information about every
visitor who enrolls in a class or a short course of study would impose a significant burden on the
INS, we believe that the INS should take steps to determine what information about these
students and schools should be collected.

INS RESPONSE: Nonconcur. Aliens coming to the United States for part-time study
are currently not admissible as either a B-2 or F-l nonimmigrant. They do not meet the statutory
definition of a B-2 as a B-2 is an alien coming for the purpose of something other than study.
They also do not meet the statutory definition of an F-l as an F-l is an alien coming to pursue a
full course of study. These definitions have left these part-time students in limbo. To remedy
this situation, the INS and Department of State (DOS) have been working with Congress to draft
appropriate legislation to allow part-time students from Canada and Mexico to enter the United
States to study in a new "F' nonimmigrant category. The INS would also track these part-time
students in SEVIS. However, we do not have the capability and resources to track every
nonimmigrant alien that enrolls in any limited course of study or individual course when that
enrollment is incidental to their primary purpose of entry.

RECOMMENDATION 15: The INS must ensure that it devotes the resources necessary
to maintain a fast processing time for 1-539 change of status applications in order to avoid
penalizing foreign students who are waiting for their applications to be adjudicated before
starting school.
Memorandum for The Commissioner Page 6
Subject: OIG Request For Response; The INS's Contacts With TwoSeptember 11
Terrorists: A Review of the INS' Admissions of Mohamed Atta and
Marwan Alshehhi, its Processing of Their Change of Status Applications;
and its Efforts toTrack Foreign Students in the United States

INS RESPONSE: Concur. The service centers have been instructed to devote adequate
resources to maintain processing of 1-539 for changes to F, M and J non-immigrant classification
to within 30 days. In February 2002, 94 positions were allocated to the service centers to support
more timely adjudication of 1-539 applications.

RECOMMENDATION 16: The INS must also determine how it will handle
nonimmigrants who have applied to become students but whose applications have not been
adjudicated prior to the start of their classes.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. A recent change to INS regulations prohibits a

nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure or business from beginning classes until their request for
change of nonimmigrant status has been approved. A B-2 nonimmigrant who has made a timely,
non-frivolous application for change of status, and whose application is not adjudicated prior to
the start of classes will be remain in valid B-2 until approved as an F-1. If denied the change of
status, the B-2 will remain a B-2 unless his or her authorized time as indicated on Form 1-94 has
expired, in which case, unlawful presence will begin accumulating. In cases where the Service
Center denies an application for a change of status and the time on the alien's 1-94 has tolled, the
denial must specifically indicate that unlawful presence begins upon issuance of the denial.

RECOMMENDATION 17: The INS should advise 1-539 applicants for student status of
the requirement that the application must be completed prior to beginning school and also advise
them of the procedure to be followed if the INS has not completed their application prior to the
start of school. This procedure should also be communicated to the schools.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. Once the rule becomes final, the INS will update the
instructions on Form 1-539 to include the new procedures and any new restrictions on school
attendance prior to the approval of the change of status. The INS frequently meets with school
organizations to advise mem of new policies and requirements. Additionally, this information
will be added to the FAQs on the Internet.

RECOMMENDATION 18: The INS should, as part of its overall management of

foreign students, designate a person or an office within the service centers with the responsibility
of communicating with schools and establish a procedure for accomplishing this objective.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. The four service centers where I-539s for changes of status
to F, M and J non-immigrant classifications are adjudicated have adjudicators dealing with
foreign students issues on a daily basis. However, Headquarters Service Center Operations
recognizes the need to have a more senior, high graded employee be the coordinator for all issues
Memorandum for The Commissioner Page 7
Subject: OIG Request For Response; The INS's Contacts With TwoSeptember 11
Terrorists: A Review of the INS' Admissions of Mohamed Atta and
Marwan Alshehhi, its Processing of Their Change of Status Applications;
and its Efforts toTrack Foreign Students in the United States

related to students and schools at each location. The service centers are in the process of writing
a position description and consulting with Headquarters Human Resources Division to proceed
with this endeavor.

RECOMMENDATION 19: The INS should develop clear and specific guidance for
service center adjudicators on how information from IBIS checks will affect the adjudication
decision, including information about previous overstays, immigration violations and criminal
histories. Adjudicators should be informed about what steps to take if it is not clear that the
applicant is the subject of the "hit" or "lookout" in IBIS.

INS RESPONSE: Concur in Part. The INS concurs with the last sentence of the
recommendation. Specific guidance is being developed that will describe the protocol that
should be used in reviewing and resolving "hits" from IBIS. With respect to the remaining
portion of the recommendation, the INS is establishing procedures for field offices to follow to
obtain advice about the impact of IBIS information on adjudicative decisions if written guidance
does not cover a particular issue, or when the adjudicator determines that additional guidance is
needed.

RECOMMENDATION 20: SEVIS should be designed so that the primary inspector

will be notified as part of the routine check performed at the POEs that an alien has filed an 1-539
to become a student or has already been conferred student status through the 1-539 process so that
primary inspectors can verify the alien's statement of intent to the inspector.

INS RESPONSE: Concur in Part. Through the design of SEVIS it is expected that
information will be forwarded from the Computer Link Applications System (CLAIMS 3) to
SEVIS. SEVIS will be the repository of all student and school information. It is expected that
SEVIS information will be available for Inspectors at POE in the secondary environment and not
on primary.

RECOMMENDATION 21: Instructions to the 1-539 application should inform

applicants that if they leave the country while their application is pending, they will be
considered to have abandoned the application. Likewise, the instructions should inform the
applicants that once the new status is conferred, they lose that status if they leave the country and
will be required to obtain student visas to re-enter.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. The INS will draft policy and guidance memoranda for
review and signature. The service centers are looking at ways to insert language in the receipt
notice of Form 1-539, advising students not to attend school until the INS has favorably
Memorandum for The Commissioner Page 8
Subject: OIG Request For Response; The INS's Contacts With TwoSeptember 11
Terrorists: A Review of the INS" Admissions of Mohamed Atta and
Marwan Alshehhi, its Processing of Their Change of Status Applications;
and its Efforts toTrack Foreign Students in the United States

adjudicated the change of status request. The INS will also advise schools of the requirement
through liaison efforts and will post proposed rules in the Federal Register.

RECOMMENDATION 22: The INS should restate its policy with respect to 1-193
waivers and ensure that primary inspectors understand and consistently enforce the waiver policy
and its limitations. Clear guidance should be reissued to inspectors about what is considered an
emergency that can result in the issuance of a waiver.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. The Inspectors Field Manual is being revised to incorporate
the body of the November 14, 2001 policy memorandum entitled "Deferred Inspection, Parole
and Waivers of Documentary Requirements" and will reemphasize the statutory requirement
providing for documentary waivers only on the basis of unforeseen emergency in individual
cases.

RECOMMENDATION 23: The INS should change service center adjudicators'

performance standards to allow more time to review files and seek additional information. At a
minimum, in light of the new processing requirements described in this report, the INS should
reconsider the performance standards of service center adjudicators and adjust the standards to
accommodate the additional time that will be spent by these adjudicators implementing the new
processing requirements.

INS RESPONSE: Concur in Part The Performance Work Plans of center adjudicators
(CAO) are under review to assure that productivity and quality are balanced within CAO
performance measures. Adjustments to processing times will be made to INS' resource
allocation model as data becomes available on the cost of the IBIS checks.

RECOMMENDATION 24: The INS should expeditiously complete and update its field
manuals. In addition, it should implement a more effective system for disseminating policies and
procedures other than sending the documents to the head of a field office.

INS RESPONSE: Concur. The INS has placed a priority on completing the field
manuals and devoted resources to update the manuals. Additionally, when the INS finalizes
rules, this information is added to the appropriate section in the Field Manual and disseminated
to each region for distribution. The INS intranet website and the bulletin board capability of the
e-mail system are also being used to notify field personnel of new requirements.

Attachments (3)