8/14/2019 T5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 2 of 6 Fdr- 1-27-03 GAO Interview Re Condor 105 Visa Revocations 584

1/3

Prepared by: Kate Brentzel Index: Type bundle index hereDate Prepared: 1/28/03 DOC Number: 787951Reviewed by: DOC Library: Type library name hereJob Code:320172

Record of InterviewTitle Interview with Richard Beer, Coordination Office (part of theVisa Off ice which handles Security Advisory Opinions)Purpose To discuss Condor 105 visa revocationsContact Method In-person interviewContact Place State Department Columbia PlazaContact Date January 27,2003Participants State: Richard Beer and Sarah ThanesGAP: Judy McCIoskey, Kate BrentzelComments/Remarks:

W e had several follow-up questions for Richard Beer on the Condor 105 and other visas that hadbeen revoked between September 12,2001and December 31, 2002.I. The Condor 105A. How did the number of Condors which had been received after the 30 day wait getreduced from 200 to 105 and then, in Dec. 2002, to 46?M r. Beer said the reason that the number of names had been reduced from 200 to 105 is becausew h en the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF) notified State's Coordination Office thatit had negative information on certain visa applicants, it referred to cable numbers. In some cases,the Condor cables that the FTTTF had received from posts had many names on them (Jakarta, forexample, sent in Condor cables with the names and biographic data for many people, not just oneperson). Thus, when the FTTTF notified the Coordination office that it had a problem withapplicants on a certain Condor cable, Mr.Beer did not know which of the many individuals on thecable were problematic. Thus, he included all of the individuals on the cable in his Condor count.By October 2002, when State sent GAO the list of names, M r. Beer ha d already clarified withFTTTF which names were problematic and which names had been included on a multi-nameCondor cable but about which the FTTTF had no derogatory information.Since G AO received the list of 105 names (in a letter dated October 7, 2002), GA O learned that th elist of Condor revocation cases had been reduced even further, to 46 names. A t a meeting with IN Slookout inspector Lisa Custer we learned that State had sent her a list of 46 names in December2002. M r. Beer said that there were only 46 names outstanding on the Condor list in Decemberbecause the FTTTF had cleared the other 59 names. He said that as of January 27, he had heardback from the FTTTF on even more names. He said that the FTTTF continues to review the casesan d continues to clear names. He said that approximately 70 of the original 10 5 have been clearedby FTTTF by email (the task force emails th e Coordination office to state that, upon fur therinvestigation, they no longer have objection to the individual).

Page 1 Recordof Interview

8/14/2019 T5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 2 of 6 Fdr- 1-27-03 GAO Interview Re Condor 105 Visa Revocations 584

2/3

Preparedby: Kate BrentzelDate Prepared: 1/28/03Reviewed by:Index: Type bundle index hereDO C Number: 787951DO C Library: Type library name hereJo b Code:320172

B. What information did the Coordination Office receive from FTTTF on each of theCondor 105?Mr. Beer said that when the FTTTF sent over information on the Condor 105, it would send hisoffice a short email stating that the task force asserted that the applicant was ineligible for a visa,

but that there was no supporting evidence in this email. Mr. Beer said that State's response was topradentially revoke the visa. A prudential revocation does not mean that State necessarily agreesthat the applicant is ineligible for a visa, it means that State agrees that there is apossible reason todeny the applicant a visa and that, by revoking the visa, State will get the applicant to apply again,upon which State can re-evaluate the applicant's eligibility (in the case of the Condor105revocations, posts are required to submit a Security Advisory Opinion cable to headquarters beforere-issuing to an applicant whose visa had been prudentially revoked). Mr. Beer said the standard ofevidence State requires to make a "prudential" revocation is pretty low; the assertion they receivedf rom the FTTTF, which did not include actual information on the applicant, was sufficient. Mr.Beer said that a prudential revocation says that State has "reason to suspect" not "reason tobelieve."W e asked Mr. Beer when State had received these emails and whether anyone had saved theemails from the FTTTF. He said that Jim Pritchett had been saving these emails for some time butthat he "lost" them due to a problem with his hard drive. Mr. Beer said that Zee Withrow at theFTTTF was the one who was emailing him, but that Ms.Withrow's last day at the FTTTF wasJanuary 24.We asked how soon after the email was received that State would revoke the visa (since we don'tknow the date of these emails f rom FTTTF, we won't know for sure what the time lag is; unless wecan get the original emails f rom FTTTF directly). Mr. Beer said that it would probably have taken afew days before the revocations were made.C. Entries into CLASSAs Catherine Barry told us in our entrance conference, revocations require three actions: sending arevocation certificate to INS, entering the revocation into CLASS, and sending a cable to post.Since we already have revocation certificates and cables for almost all of the 105, we asked Mr.Beer for documentation on CLASS entries. Hesaid that there would not be a way to tell when therevocation information was entered into CLASS, although State has a policy to make the CLASSentries the same day the revocation is made. Hesaid that when a consular off icer enters thelookout into CLASS, he has to specify whether it is a 212a3a or 212a3b case. He also said thatprudential revocations are listed as "p" entries in CLASS. "P" entries are "quasi refusal codes,"meaning "possible." The lookout code for someone whose visa was revoked prudentially under212a3b would be entered as a "P3b" for "possible terrorist activity." "P"entries in CLASS do notdownload into IBIS.Mr. Beer said that State realized that prudential revocations entered into CLASS with a "p"codewould not download into IBISso it created a new revocation code for CLASS:"VRVK" whichmeans "visa revoked." Mr. Beer could not remember exactly when the new code went into effectbut he thinks it was August 12,2002.

Page 2 Record of Interview

8/14/2019 T5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 2 of 6 Fdr- 1-27-03 GAO Interview Re Condor 105 Visa Revocations 584

3/3

Prepared by: Kate Brentzel Index: Type bundle index hereDate Prepared: 1/28/03 DOC Number: 787951Reviewed by: DOC Library: Type library name hereJob Code: 320172D. Why do some revocation certificates for the Condor 105 say 212a3 and some say212a3B?Mr. Beer did not know the answer to this question.E. Why do some revocation certificates for the Condor 105 say 212a3 while theindividual's adjudication history says 212a3B?Mr. Beer did not know the answer to this question.II. Universe of all visas revoked on terrorism concerns (212a3) from 9-11-01 to 12-31-02.We have heard conflicting information from State regarding the total number of visas revoked forterrorism concerns from September 11, 2001 to December 31, 2002. At our entrance conferencewith State, Mr. Beer said he thought the number would be small, but at this meeting, he revised hisestimate and said it could be a large number. We asked if they could estimate the total numberwould be so that we could decide if we wanted to see all revocations or just a sample from thetotal. Mr. Beer said that he could search cable archives for "212a3" and get an estimate of the totalnumber for us. Hesaid that many of these other revocations came as a result of posts sending inVisas Viper on suspected terrorists. Then TEPOFF creates a lookout on this person and searchesthe Consular Consolidated Database to see if any visas had already been issued to the person.Ifthey had, the visas would be revoked.

Page 3 . Record of Interview