Grassley Introduces Legislation to Close Visa Revocation Loophole
WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley today introduced an amendment to the National Intelligence Reform Bill that would close a loophole that endangers national security. Grassley said he had to write legislation because the Department of Homeland Security failed to follow-up on pledges made more than a year ago to fix the problem.
Grassley has been pressing the Departments of State and Homeland Security for the last year to make changes to visa revocation certificates so that foreigners who were not supposed to be granted a visa can be questioned, detained, or deported.
"There could have been an easy solution to this if the Department of Homeland Security had just kept its promise," Grassley said. "Actions speak louder than words. We just can't have the federal bureaucracy continue dragging their feet. It's time to get it done."
The loophole was exposed in June 2003 by the General Accounting Office (GAO). The report said that if an alien's visa is revoked on terrorism grounds after the alien reaches U.S. soil, the wording of the visa revocation makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to deport the suspected terrorist. Following the GAO report, Grassley wrote to the State Department, requesting it change the policy and fix the problem.
In a separate hearing in July 2003, Under Secretary of Homeland Security Asa Hutchinson pledged to Grassley that the Homeland Security Department would issue regulations to change language that would enable authorities to deport aliens whose visas have been revoked on terrorism grounds as soon as a memo of understanding with the State Department was finalized. The memo was signed Sept. 29, 2003, and since then, the Department of Homeland Security has had control over visa policies and procedures. On May 20th of this year, a member of the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that a regulation was written and being circulated internally.
A copy of Grassley's floor statement follows here.
Mr. President,
I rise today to offer an amendment to fix a loophole in our visa policies that could have detrimental consequences on our national security. I have been pressing the Departments of State and Homeland Security for the last year to make changes to visa revocation certificates so that we can question, detain, or deport foreigners who were not supposed to be granted a visa.
Since 9/11, the State Department has revoked more than 1,200 visas based on terrorism links.
Today, it is extremely difficult to detain and deport suspected terrorists whose visas have been revoked on terrorism grounds after those persons have set foot on U.S. soil.
On June 17, 2003, a GAO report revealed that suspected terrorists can stay in the country after their visas have been revoked on terrorism grounds because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. This loophole came to light after the GAO found that more than 100 persons were granted visas that were later revoked because there was evidence the persons had terrorism links and associations.
The GAO reported that the State Department instituted a 30-day name check, called Visas Condor. Consular officers apply Visas Condor procedures to applicants who require a name check and who fit certain classified criteria. The consular officers forward the information to the FBI, who accumulated a backlog of 8,000 security checks.
Consular officers didn't hear back from the FBI in time, so they approved visas for the foreigners. The GAO found that, "of the estimated 38,000 Visa Condor cables processed by August 1, 2002, the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force had identified about 280 visa applicants who should not have received a visa under the INA's terrorism provision."
The State Department revoked the visas in these cases and notified the Immigration and Naturalization Service of this action. But, guess what?! Our law enforcement couldn't do a thing about it. These suspected terrorists were on U.S. soil with a visa they were not supposed to have. Yet, they were not deportable.
It was over a year ago that the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this problem.
When Immigration and Customs Enforcement testified at our hearing, they stated, "The visa remains valid and the alien maintains lawful status while in the United States absent any conduct making him or her subject to removal on other grounds."
Some of us in Congress expected the bureaucracies to fix this problem immediately after the GAO brought it to our attention. Perhaps this expectation was naive.
We all recognized that a simple administrative fix, such as re-writing the revocation certificate, would solve the problem. In fact, Assistant Secretary Hutchinson personally pledged to me in this his Department would issue regulations to fix it as soon as the Memo of Understanding with the Department of State was finalized. The Memo was signed on September 29, 2003.
Here we are – more than a year after the GAO first revealed the loophole – and the problem still has not been solved. Today, I offer a legislative fix.
My amendment makes an alien deportable if their visas are revoked when they're on U.S. soil. It also says the revocation is not open to administrative or judicial review, which is consistent with current practice in adjudicating visa applications.
Some of you out there who question this proposal – that question our removal of aliens suspected of terrorism or other heinous crimes – need to think twice.
This is a national security concern, and one that requires our intelligence community to work with consular officers who then work with our nation's law enforcement.
This is truly an implementation of the 9/11 recommendation that "The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility."
Some may argue that the revocation could be made on false information. That is not true. According to a State Department cable sent to posts: "A consular officer does not have the authority to revoke a visa based on a suspected ineligibility, or based on derogatory information that is insufficient to support an ineligibility finding. A consular revocation must be based on actual finding that the alien is ineligible for the visa."
Some argue that the alien doesn't get the opportunity to explain their case. Again, that is not true. According to the same Department cable: "A consular officer shall notify the alien of the intent to revoke....and to give the alien the opportunity to show why the visa should not be revoked." This notification has been stressed to consular officers.
If a visa is revoked by an officer – and the information is unfounded – the alien is eligible for a visa upon re-application.
It is amazing to me that such a simple and straightforward solution to such a dangerous and well-known problem continues to languish. The visa revocation loophole needs to be fixed.
-30-