9/11 Law Enforcement Privacy

Prepared by: Kate Brentzel i Index: Type bundle index here

Date Prepared: July 23, 2003 DOC Number: 924569
Reviewed by: Type reviewer name here i DOC Library: Type library name here
Job Code:320172

Record of Interview
Title Follow-up interview with National Security Unit, Bureau of
Customs and Border Enforcement (BICE), Department of
I Homeland Security (DHS)
Purpose i To discuss visa revocation report
Contact Method | In person interview
Contact Place IINS headquarters
Contact Date |June\23, 2003
Participants iGAQji Judy McCloskey, Kate Brentzel, Mary Moittsos
JDHS:| I. Jim Hayes, Cathy Muhletaler,f~
I I
Comments/Remarks:

The Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations held a
hearing on visa revocation issues on June 18, 2003 during which GAO testified on its visa
revocation report. A BICE official also testified during which he stated that BICE did not agree
with the GAO's characterization of the NSU's actions to investigation and locate individuals whose
visas had been revoked but who may have entered the United States. Chairman Shay requested
that GAO and NSU officials meet to discuss this matter.

In our report, Border Security: New Policies and Procedures Are Needed to Fill Gaps in the Visa
Revocation Process,' we stated that INS did not routinely take action on individuals with revoked
visas had entered the United States. The report specifies that the National Security Unit (NSU),
unlike the Lookout Unit, did not receive copies of the faxed revocation certificates or cables from
the State Department and that the Lookout Unit did not routinely notify NSU investigators of
revocations unless the individual was in TIPOFF. We also state that the NSU investigators said
that they generally did not investigate or locate individuals whose visas were revoked based on
terrorism concerns, but that they had investigated and attempted to locate seven individuals
because of congressional interest in these specific cases.

At our with NSU investigators on June 23, they told us that they were upset by our characterization
of them in our report. They told us that they investigated all revocation cases that were referred to
them but that they could not investigate cases that were not referred to them. They said that our
report was unfair because we did not explain that the unit could not investigate or locate
individuals with revoked visas unless the cases they were notified. They said that ten revocation
cases had been referred to them during the time period of our review and that they had conducted
investigations in each case.

'U.S. General Accounting Office, Border Security: New Policies and Procedures Are Needed to Fill Gaps in the Visa
Revocation Process, GAO-Oa-798 (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003).

Page I Record of Interview

 Prepared by: Kate Brentzef Index: Type bundle index here
Date Prepared: July 23,2003 DOC Number: 924569
Reviewed by: Type reviewer name here DOC Library: Type library name here
Job Code:320172

We told them that we stood by our overall conclusion that the INS, as an agency, did not routinely
investigate or locate individuals with revoked visas but that we recognize that the report could
have more clearly stated that NSU generally did not investigate or locate individuals whose visas
were revoked for terrorism concerns by who may still be in the United States because those cases
were not referred to them. The NSU investigators agreed that it was true that the INS, as an overall
agency, did not routinely investigate or locate these individuals but reiterated that we should have
made the connection more obvious in our report.

Page 2 Record of Interview