9/11 Personal Privacy Page 1 01 3

\>
\, Robert W

<•',
V-
V,
From: Mustain, Robert W
\: Thursday. Auust 01. 2002 3:48 PM
To:
Co: Anderson, Charles; Lutz, Kim
Subject: RE: draft unclas consular checklist for TARP and PAW
Doug, I was glad you asked the question, it made me do a little mental organizing that I should have done
earlier. The program plan has a longer, but I'm not sure better explanation. Chuck will probably be calling you
\r today. He has sent a memo asking that you come on board immediately, arguing in part that John is off the
rolls for the next two weeks. In addition to attending the meeting with Kim, I'd like you to work on a couple of
other things. I am sending you the draft of the unclassified cable to Brussels announcing the arrival of the
inspection team. I am also sending you the rough draft of the unclass cable sending the questionnaire. If/when
the IG and Bob clear on them, and on the classified cable with that questionnaire, could you please do all you can
to get them sent out to the field? Harold Woodley in CAA/O apparently has a colective "a/I MRV" address that
should serve to get the cables to all the right posts. I will also send you the project proposal fyi. Chuck is
working on the notification to the Secretary and the separate memos to CA and INR. They need to be sent before
we can send the rest, but we really need to get the questionnaires out not later than MOnday and the cable to
Brussels should go tomorrow if we can get approval. Thanks for helping with this. Bob

\Original Message—

S^nt: Thursday, August 01, 2002 3:11 PM

To? Mustain, Robert W
Subject: RE: draft undas consular checklist for TARP and PAW

Thanks for taking the time on what must be a busy day to give me more nuance about what we are
hoping to accomplish. I like your closing sentence: "Do our visa issuance policies and
procedures <do all that is possible " Especially as qualified by your description of the aspects
of section management that Washington either does not mandate or does not enforce. I put them
back-to-back in my consciousness, and now know what we're doing....

I'll be there tomorrow morning.

Doug \l Message

From Mustain, Robert Wl |

Sent: Thursday, August 017^002 12:43
To: Parker, John A; I I OIG-ISP-Tcam-7
Subject: RE: draft unclas consular checklist for TARP and PAW

Doug, While I agree with you that blue sheets don't equate with "failures"
in the process, asking posts if they have studied them is a quick way of
discovering whether they have any sort of "quality control" process in
place. There are other, better ways of doing this of course. For instance,
some posts actively follow up on at least some issuances to find out if they
have returned as planned. Because we have no valid figures from INS on
departures I don't know how State could do a statistically valid study of
visa issuances especially since refusals cant be validated-a legitimate
applicant who is refused cant go to the US and prove he had not lied about
his intentions. Too much of the process, refusals and issuances, is based

8/9/02
 Page 2 of3

on largely annecdotal information available at post, e.g., "young men from

village A never come back." It is also unclear how much of an orientation
into local patterns of fraud a new officer at post actually gets. I think
John is trying to get at this issue but I would welcome any other
suggestions.

You also raise a broader question, what are we actually looking at in this
project My answer would be as follows. Visa sections have broad
discretion in structuring the visa process. The application process,
including waiver of personal appearance and the use of various organizations
to accept, prescreen and submit applications, and die interview system, as
well as training and orientation of officers and staff, are all very much
determined at post Until now, CA has not exerted much control OIGhas
reviewed posts' performance as part of the normal inspections but never
looked at the complete picture. This project aims at looking at the
process, choosing some posts for a more in depth look, with a specific group
of applicants, potential terrorists, as the central focus. We also want to
look at the relationship between the front office and the visa section and
interagency cooperation at post Thaf s a lot and it will be important to
keep are focus as narrow as possible. If I had to put it all in one
sentence it would be: Do our visa issuance policies and procedures do all
that is possible to block potential terrorists from entering the United
States and is there adequate supervision of this system from Washington and
appropriate inter-agency cooperation at post to achieve this goal?

-Original Message-
From: Parker, John A
Sent: Thursday. August 01, 2002 12:11 PM
To: | |OIG-tSP-Team-7
Subject: RE: draft unclas consular checklist for TARP and PAW

79/11 Personal
/' Privacy
Dear Doug: You are right about die subjects. Joe and Kim will do their
methodology in a classified form that you can see when they get it done.
Although I generally agree with your idea of what we want to do on the
consular side, we also need to answer some specific questions Congress asked
abotu TARPS and PAWs. I take it mat you feel that examining the blue sheets
answers none of the questions we need to ask. That may well be, and I will
check with Bob about deleting this element from the checklist When I used
the word "validation" I meant to convey die notion that we should do some
checking in the section to see if people were telling us the truth in die
interviews, I did not intend to ask for a validation study or some odier
formal way of judging the accuracy of consular decisions. Thanks for the
comments. Regards, John
-- Original Message-
Prang ......
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1 1 :50 AM
To: Parker, John A
Subject RE: draft unclas consular checklist for TARP and PAW

Let me begin by saying diat, since I wasn't around when our project got
started, I have a very vague idea of what it is we are trying to accomplish.
I thought we had two subjects to examine: PAWs in all their variety, and
sharing of info at posts between Consular and Intel/Law Enforcement.

In examining die first, we want to do two things: make sure appropriate

procedures are being followed, and to consider whether tiiere is any
indication that waiving die interview is resulting in poorer decisions.

8/9/02
 Page 3 of3

It is in this last regard mat the word "validation" arises. I have always
maintained die blue sheets tell you nothing useful First of all, the .
original NIV application ought to have been long-since destroyed by the time
the blue sheet arrives. Secondly, there is a very long distance between an
alien availing himself of the benefits of Section 245 and a conclusion that
die original NIV ought not to have been issued. Lastly, blue sheets relate
to only an unknowable traction of the host-country nationals who entered the
US and failed to return. They will tend, for example, to overstate the
"danger" of issuing to single people; single Ruritanian MTV recipients may
stay in Ihe US at a rate no greater man married ones, but will be a
disproportionate percentage of blue sheets.

A statistically-sound validation study of PAW outcomes may or may not have

been done at post, and we ought to find out But I don't know how we can,
in the brief time we'll be at each post, make any sound conclusions of our
own about whether or not post's PAW programs result in lower-quality
decisions than post's interviews.

Doug

Original Message
From: Parker, John A [mailtol | ............;;;::::==, gm P e r s o n a l
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2UUZ UV:33 ~~^ Priva cy
To:l ' I-
Subject FW: draft unclas consular checklist for TARP and PAW

Here is where we are on the TARP/PAW checklist Any ideas? Regards, John

> Original Message

> From: Mustain, Robert W
> Sent:Wednesday, July 31, 2002 4:13 PM
> To: Parker, John A
> Cc: Anderson, Charles
> Subject: RE: draft unclas consular checklist for TARP and PAW
> •"• <
> John, A good start There are some outer areas I want us to look at as
>wcll. What land of post-specific training is given to line officers
> responsible for adjudication? How much real supervision is provided by
> consular managers? Are issuances and refusals by the chief of section
> being reviewed by the DCM-or someone? Are blue sheets matched to
> applications? This last speaks to the whole issue of validation. Some
> posts—Zagreb is one—do a good job of following up on cases, checking to
> see if applicants really return, other never do anything along this line.
> Keeping in mind the time frame we are looking at, 2-4 days per post, I
> don't think we can look at the IV process. In looking at the TARP I think
> we should ask what, if any, are die differences in how these cases are
> handled in contrast to other PAW or walk-in cases. We need to look at the
> relationship between the front office and the consular section. Does it
> operate in a vacuum, or is it interacting with the rest of the mission?
> Is there sharing of information, not just classified stuff but whatever is
> on the minds of the political and economic sections, the PAO, etc. Having
> said this, I have to drag myself back to what I said above, we have to
> keep this focused and doable in the time allowed Fortunately, they will
> be thinking of some of these issues already because of today's cable from
>CA.

8/9/02
Anderson, Charles A
From: Lutz, Kim(SIOJOD)
_Sent: Thursday. August 29,2002 12:17 PM
Lutz, Kim(SIOJOD); Lahnstein, Joseph(SIOJOD); Ellice, Douglas(ISP); Anderson, Charles A
(ISP_CE)
oubject: Input from Montreal

Doug: One thing I am finding is that there is no guidance from Washington

on what criteria should be used by Visas Viper committees for inclusion into
the W system. It is sort of left up to the Committees to use their common
sense from whence there is a considerable variance from post to post.
Montreal has a person dedicated to Fraud/W and is doing a terrific job.
Toronto is struggling.

Please ask specifically about guidance in your interviews. Also, ask what
kind of feedback on W submissions they get from Washington. I'm looking
for more than the occasional kudos or thanks cable but cables or e-mail that
discuss what is included in CLASS and why. And what may have been lacking
from a W submission from the field.

Here in Montreal the W coordinator sends 'Vipers' cables on individuals and

then checks to see if they are listed in Class and so far Washington is up
to May/June but no later. Also, here they are making submissions on not
only Montreal cases but also on other reporting, usually press, of
identified terrorists-case in point is that the W Coordinator waited some
two weeks after some prominent 17 November terrorists were identified in
Greece. When they didn't show up in CLASS the names were submitted from
here. They still are not in CLASS and no feedback from Washington. E-mails
are also being sent to TIPOFF/W and don't get answered. I said that they
•••ere close to being overwhelmed in the TIPOFF unit and that was understood
e. All for now. Stay in touch by e-mail if something comes up that the
jt of us would benefit from. Good Traveling. Kim
Mustain, Robert W
From: Lutz, Kim
Sent: Friday. July 26, 2002 3:26 PM
>: OIG-ISP-Team-7
.object: Some scope input

Chuck: Here is a thought about our scope:

Consistent with the Department's objective to facilitate Visas Viper reporting, OIG will review that reporting process at
missions abroad. This will include an assessment of Chief of Mission oversight of the process, the number and types of
meetings, the coordination among various mission sections, and the clarity and efficiency of the process.
Mustain, Robert W
From: Lahnstein, Joseph
Sent: Monday, October 07.2002 11:29 AM
>: Parker, John A; Ellice, Douglas; Krieg. Norbert
>c: OIG-ISP-Team-7
Subject: RE: Visas Eleven responses to Visas Condor

for what it is worth, i have not seen anything called a "donkey condor." that said, the crux of the reply is
something that we have all mentioned: a lack of definitive Washington guidance on what the standards are for
submitting an sao request i take from the CA reply

As you know, it's always a judgment call [emphasis added] as to what is close enough. I
personally wouldn't re-submit the cases where name is only similar and dob is off by 2-3 years, but
you have to have your own comfort level with die cases.

while the answer about closeness of name, dob may be spot on, the issue is that it should NOT be a judgement call, this
does not impute any lack of judgement on the part of consular officials, but suggests at a minimum uneveness in
requesting sao's on individuals, this uneveness in application, i believe, leads to significant differences in who and who
is not submitted for sao's, with resulting vulnerabilities at those posts with higher thresholds for submission than those
with lower ones, i believe Washington should step up to the plate and define what is "dose enough" while figuring out
how to manage the risk of those placed outside the pall, as it were.

cheers.

—Original Message—
**om: Parker, John A
nfc Monday, October 07, 2002 10:36 AM
. o: Slice, Douglas; Krieg, Norbert
Cc OIG-ISP-Team-7
Subject: FW: Visas Seven responses to Visas Condor

FYI. What effect will this have on Condor backlogs where /all are? I will see what I can find out here. Regards, John
—Original Message—
From: Mustain, Robert W
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:33 AM
To: Anderson, Chartes(ISP); Parker, John A(ISP)
Subject: FW: Visas Seven responses to Visas Condor

Chuck and John, This issue surfaced here in Riyadh and is, I think, a major problem. I don't recall any instructions about
"donkey condors." If they are not resolving the name check hits then there may be a lot of visas that need much more
work. Please see what you can find out. I'm not sure where the others are so feel free to copy this to them. Bob I'm off to
Jeddah early tomorrow.

—Original Message—
From: Winstaad. Gregory M
Sent: Monday, October 07.2002 5:10 PM
To: Mustain. Robert W '
Subject: FW: Visas Eleven responses to Visas Condor

—Original Message—
From: Pritchett, James R
Sent: Thursday. October 03, 2002 2:27 AM. .
*•»: Trost, Laurie J; Smith, Brendan Bi I Winstead. Gregory M(Rlyadh)
bj«ct: RE: Visas Eleven responses to Visas Condor

9/11 Working-level
Employee
Hi Greg - good question. I'm not sure if Brendan responded, but what we were trying to capture
with that language was those cases where posts had sent in a condor, but there was a class hit, and
it therefore should have been a donkey condor. We did n<5t resolve any hits on the condor cables
vhen we sent the mass responses, because a cable that is just tagged as a condor should not have
ad hits. (NOTE - we do resolve hits, though, on those cases where you get an individual
response covering just one applicant - and we'd probably point out that it should have been a
donkey condor.) We didn't envision that posts would re-run the names, although I can't say that's
a bad idea, particularly for cases that are several months old.

The Condor process does not focus on hits, so if s a case that you think has a hit, it should be
resubmitted. As you know, it's always a judgment call as to what is close enough. I personally
wouldn't re-submit the cases where name is only similar and dob is off by 2-3 years, but you have
to have your own comfort level with the cases.

Know this isn't real clear, but hope it helps some. Jim

—Original Message
From: Trost, Laurie J
Sent- Wednesday. October 02.2002 3:07 PM
To: Pritcnett, James R
Subject: FW: Visas Eleven responses to Visas Condor

I don't know the answer - luckily Greg sent to Brendan also!

—Original Message—
From: Winstead, Gregory M
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:30 PM
To: Trost, Laurie J(CWO/F/P): Smith. Brendan B(CA/VO/L/Q
Cc Sackett, Kenneth Fri ~i
Subject: Visas Eleven responses to Visas Condor " g/11 Working -ievel Employee

Laurie/Brendan,

Last Saturday we received a cable containing Visas Eleven clearances for a large batch (nearly 500) of Visas Condor.
(We have another 1,500 or more still pending.) For slightly more than 10% of the cases, there are CLASS hits which
have similar names and are within 2/3 years of the date of birth. The Visas Eleven cable states that "the Department
has no objection to the issuance of visas to the following individuals, provided CLASS namecheck is negative for DPT
00 entries or any actual or possible Category One hits.' Did the Visas Condor process review the existing CLASS hits
to determine if any of the applicants have matching/problematic information on record for DPT 00 entries or Category
One hits as of the date the Visas Eleven were issued? If so, then we at post would need to focus on any entries in
CLASS made since that time. If not, it appears that we may need to send a good number of our applicants back
through as Visas Donkey to resolve any lingering doubt about which hits the Visas Condor process resolved for these
applicants. Before we submit all of these Visas Donkey, we would appreciate any clarification regarding whether the
CLASS entries have been reviewed and resolved for the individuals listed in this and any similar cables in the future.

Thank you. Greg