SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

9/11 Working-level Employee

Office of the Inspector General

Memorandum of Conversation

October 9, 2002

Participants:

]is a native Arabic speaker and has worked part time in the consular section
for two years. He was on the line for the entire period during which "Visa Express" was
in place: He feels that it was a very bad idea in that too many Saudis were not
interviewed. He believes that since the downturn in the Saudi economy previous
assumptions about the eligibility of Saudis for visas should have been rethought. While
the "Visa Express" concept was not a bad one if used only to accept visa applications, the
actual practice was different. One vice consul was left to do the vast majority of the
processing, hundreds of visas each day. She could not possibly give each application her
full attention and because there was particular pressure to issue to Saudis she did little
rnore than rubber stamp these applications, devoting her available interview time to non-
Saudis. Effectively, she issued after checking the screen for CLASS hits. When none
appeared she did not further review most Saudi applications.

khinks that with the decline in the economy more Saudis resemble the profile
of ineligible applicants from pther countries, unemployed, poorly educated, and with no
^ lear ties in the conventional sense. He feels that the former CG, Richard Baltimore,
became personally involved in the visa process, beyond the referral process. This was
true to the point of criticizing MrJ "Hfor having too high a refusal rate. The consul
at;that timej I was unwilling to take him on, nor was he on the line to assist the
vice consuls.

MrJ [believes the condor process should be modified to allow expeditious

processing for medical cases.

He does not serve on the Visas Viper committee.

9/11 Working-level Employee

Mr.| Iwas very frank in responding to questions about visa procedures and the
atmospher.e in the section and consulate general as a whole. Specifically, he stated that
trie ConsulGeneral became personally involved in the visa process beyond normal
management oversight and the referral process. He told the inspector that the CG had
gone to his then supervisor (name not given) and complained th'atj Iwas refusing
too rtiany Saudi applicants. He further stated that one State vice consul was charged with
adjudicating vinually all of the Saudi applications and could do little more than check to
make sure there were no CLASS hits. Finally, he said that the section chief was
unwilling to challenge the CG and did not personally adjudicate visas.

Only Mr] Iwas available at post to be interviewed. The other persons mentioned
above had departed post. Mrj Is statements could not be corroborated nor
challenged. His statements are at the core of the criticism of the visa process in Saudi
Arabia prior to September 11. Both he and his former supervisor should be interviewed.
Although he did not himself issue any of the visas he can provide valuable insight into
the operations of the post that issued the greatest number of the visas issued to the
terrorists. His supervisor can either confirm or impeach his statements.