u.s.

REFUGEE ADMISSIONS
for
FISCAL YEAR 2003

Department of State
Department of Justice
Department of Health and Human Services
October 2002
 FY 2003 Report to the Congress

This Report was submitted to the Congress in compliance with Section 207(e) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Act requires that before the start of the fiscal year and,
to the extent possible, at least two weeks prior to consultations on refugee admissions, members of
the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives be provided with the
following information:

(1) A description of the nature of the refugee situation;

(2) A description of the number and allocation of the refugees to be admitted and an
analysis of conditions within the countries from which they came;

(3) A description of the plans for their movement and resettlement and the estimated
cost of their movement and resettlement;

(4) An analysis of the anticipated social, economic, and demographic impact of their
admission to the United States';

(5) A description of the extent to which other countries will admit and assist in the
resettlement of such refugees;

(6) An analysis of the impact of the participation of the United States in the
resettlement of such refugees on the foreign policy interests of the United States;
and

(7) Such additional information as may be appropriate or requested by such members.

1Detailed discussion of the anticipated social and economic

impact, including secondary migration, of the admission of
refugees to the United States is being provided in the Report to
the Congress of the Refugee
Resettlement Program, Office of Refugee Resettlement, (
Department of Health and Human Services.
1
 FOREWORD

The annual Congressional consultations on refugee admissions, held on October 1, provided

an opportunity for the Administration and Congress to focus on the domestic and international
implications of U.S. refugee policy and the need for admissions in the coming year. This document
outlines the Administration's refugee admissions strategy for 2003 and provides detailed narrative
and statistical information about the program and the refugee admissions ceilings by region.

Each year, the U.S. refugee admissions program offers freedom and safety to tens of
thousands of refugees. FY 2002, however, was the most challenging year since the founding of the
current U.S. refugee admissions program with only some 27,000 refugees arriving by the end of the
fiscal year - fewer than half the authorized ceiling for the year. In the aftermath of September 11
and with the onset of the Global War on Terrorism, we implemented enhanced security measures
that considerably lengthened refugee processing time and significantly interrupted admissions.
There were problems in implementing new background check requirements on refugees and other
migrantsby intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Concerns regarding security for U.S.
government personnel in the months following September 11 resulted in a several month hiatus in
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) interviews worldwide and suspension of processing
in some locations altogether. For certain nationality groups, having a close relative in the United
States may afford access to an interview for U.S. refugee status. INS adopted new security
procedures to verify the claimed relationships and discovered fraud or misrepresentation in the
claimed family relationships in some 40% of the approved family reunion cases, resulting in
disqualification of thousands of individuals we had counted in our proposed ceiling for FY 2002.
Fraud and corruption concerns in the referral programs of UNHCR had a negative impact on
thousands of potential arrivals. As a result of all of these factors, the lives of thousands of refugee
applicants were dramatically affected.

The Department of State, INS, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation collaborated in an extraordinary effort to meet these unprecedented challenges. INS
has added adjudicators, contract staff at ports of entry, and new fingerprinting equipment to speed
the admission of arriving refugees, reduce backlogs, and increase the integrity of the refugee
admissions program. The State Department-provided funding to sustain the existing operating
capacity of our program partners domestically and overseas and to increase security in a variety of
locations, from Kakuma refugee camp in northern Kenya to Moscow. The Department of Justice
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation worked to improve the administration of the increasingly
complex background requirements that national security now requires.

Positive developments throughout the world had an impact as well. The ongoing
repatriation of millions of Afghans has dramatically transformed the prospects for thousands of
people who once would have been considered for resettlement in the United States. In Sierra
Leone, tens of thousands of refugees are now returning home. The stabilization of life in the
Balkans has led to a decline in the need for continued resettlement there.

In last year's Report to Congress, the Administration proposed incremental growth in the
program beginning in FY 2003, subject to availability of funds and maintenance of program
integrity. The extraordinary events of the past year took us in the opposite direction. The global
security environment for processing changed dramatically; homeland security concerns became

11
.~ Event:
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

DOS PRM Briefing on Refugee entry and security clearances

Type of event: Briefing

Date: August 20, 2003
Special Access Issues: None
Prepared by: SO
Team Number: 5
Location: State Department annex Columbia Plaza
Participants - Non-Commission:

Agencyrritle Phone
Name
Dir. Off. Of Refugee Programs 202-663-1047
Terry Rusch
Bur of Pop, Ref, and Migration ruscht@state.gov
Program Manager, Bur of Pop, Ref. & Mig. 202-663- 1042
Janice Belz
belzjs@state.gov
9/11 Agency Internal Matters

•
Participants - Commission:
M. Elizabeth Swope Team Leader Team 5 202-401-1726

Susan Ginsburg Counsel Team 5 202-401-1747

Documentslhandouts* received by the Commission:

* indicates follow up communication
1. post-9/ll procedures 2001
2. report to the President 2002
3. *refugee admissions by yr and region
4. *flow chart of admissions process
5. *organization chart

Other persons mentioned.~././9/ 11 Agency Internal Matters

F ank L first heedof refugee program under President Carter

Office Director at DHS who adjudicates refugee admissions
egacy INS (Inspections) - in charge at DHS
Dep Sec Armitage
Depty AG Thompson
10M exec. Director Brunson McKinley, Geneva
c:)\1 9/11 Closed by Statute

•
• Text:

Refugee Act of 1980 responded to Vietnamese boat people crisis. Annual ceiling set by
Presidential Decision, by region, based on recommendations by State developed with
Cabinet level consultations directly with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees
usually face to face. Funding for resettlement is in State and HHS budgets. 250k
Vietnamese entered in first year. Special provisions govern the FSU, Cuba, and Viet
Nam.

Impact of September Ll on refugee program. Sept 11 attacks disrupted the

preparation of the annual Presidential Decision on refugees, which needed to be issued by
Sept. 30, 2003 otherwise the authority lapsed. On about Sept 25·26, a planeload of
Afghan refugees landed at JFK. NYPD called Giuliani who called Mueller who called
the WH (?); ultimately Armitage and Thompson decided to continue planned entry of
those refugees, including the planeload, but no new refugee PD would be issued until a
review of all security aspects of program occurred. Thus, the program was suspended on
Sept. 30 for [three] months while a new process was decided upon. PRM provided a
document stating the post-9fll requirements. Also, a Fraud Working Group, including
PRM, INS, and NGO's continues to work on fraud/security issues.

•
Refugee admissions, unlike visas, are adjudicated by DHS (legacy INS). Already
entered refugees may be followed by immigrating spouse and children. These are Visas
92 (family ofasylees) and V. 93 (family of refugees) and are adjudicated by consular
officers abroad after approval by INS of petition unless there is an INS officer at post.
Jan agreed to provide a flow chart describing the application, security review, and
adjudication process for admissions. NGOs prepare the initial applications (Overseas
Processing Entity); clearances are done through RAPS or State PRM, which had not
previously been involved with this; then the packages go to DHS. The process works
significantly differently depending on whether RAPS - the Refugee Automated
Processing System - is available. It is generally available but there are notable
exceptions, like Havana, Damascus, and Islamabad.

Current and future status/issues of program. The 2002 PD was signed November 21,
2001. Due to the delay and other factors, only 27,000 of the 70,000 ceiling were
admitted. The five year average previous to 9/11 was 70k per year. The current ceiling is
70,000 and PRM anticipates admissions of28,000. PRM·believes 50,000 would be a
more realistic ceiling, and stated that ceilings are generally inflated above State
recommendations by political pressures on WH from advocacy groups, regardless of
party in the WH. A factor may be that groups are paid by the head for processing
applicants. Factors dragging down the numbers include: DHS organizational mess;
security requirements for DHS personnel (e.g. violence in a refugee camp will cause
processing visit to be cancelled); and new security requirements. Security ...-' ,

•
showed us classified cable traffic on 8 (1 + 7) individuals barredonsecurity grounds
since 9fl1. There is still a backlog of CIA hol_4_s_.C~severafhundred")
-.....
pre-dating Jan
9/11 Agency Internal Matters
2002. Refugee admissions low priority. Charter flights need to be reestablished, rather
than using commercial flights - a DHS/Cronin decision?

In dealing with refugees, one of the fundamental problems is authenticating identity

especially since many refugees have no documents. Terry believes next step is
biometrics on UNHCR documents. Further said that merging watchlists/clearance process
would simplify the process as there would be fewer places to clear and fewer
opportunities for bottlenecks.

NB: Flow chart on SAO process is in clearance process (per J Belz).

c:
o
~
CO
N
c:
CO
e>
o c;;-
.....
+-'
c: --
N
.....
.....
"'-;-~
CfJ I
~
'-
....
C>Q)
:!Ecc
~
(9CfJ
-(9
....
Q) ....
o Q)
-
::J
o
ij:C>
E- O~
~:! E(9
~C>
C> I

oW
I ctQ.
c,
e
Q)
o
tI=
o c;;-
o
>-

en
I
CfJQ)
!:!::..~
c:
.... co
Q):r:

o ~c
O~
en E Q)
co Q)
en .....c
c>CfJ
e
E a,

~
 ~ co ~ ~ ~ co
co ~0 N ~co
co
~co
(0 (0 f"-. N (0 (0 (0 C") 0 (0 0) C") 0 I.() f"-. 0
~~
C")

~~
C")

~
I.() 0 ~0> 0 (0 ~~ I.() 0) 0') 0
~~ N co f"-. (0 ~ co
co
~ 0>
f"-. 0
('I)
~ ~
co eo N N
N I.() N_ O
C") N_ C") f"-. I.()
~- 0_ 0 ('I) I.() 0') 0
r-:
I.() ('I) I.()_ T-
-I
-c (0 r-: a> ~
~ cD ~~ f"-. a:i ~(0 0') ci r-: N ..¢ (0 f"-.
~ N ~m N
N cti ~ a> <D ci a.6 cti a) ~ 0 LO
~~
(0 (0 (0 f"-. 0 f"-. f"-. f"-. CO f"-. (0 N N
N 0 f"-.
~ ~N ~ ~ ~ ~
0> ('I) 0') T-
~
C") I.()
~ N L.O
0 N
~

N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ('I) 0 0') 0) N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ "0
-0
('I) I.() 0 CO CO I.()
N
T-
N
ro
f"-. I.()

~
0
ri
1'_
~
CO
cO ~
0:::
U5 a..
a.. I
C")
o
o
N
coI
so
0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0') 0 CO 0') ~CO 0> ~ CO CO 0') N ('I) f"-. 0 0
~ f"-. ~
~
C") CO 0> 0 ('I)
......
CO r-, o
~ ~ (0 0
~N 0_ f"-.
(0 o
rr
N 0 N (0 f"-. 0 CO 0') CO
N
~
C")
CO
~ 0
C") 0')
m N CO ~ ~ (0 f"-. 0>_ 0 ('I) 0') 0')_ 0>_ 0> CO I.() 0') C") 0 (0
'w
~0 ~N ri ri en
('1)-

<!:
N ri <D a.6 ..¢ a.6 I.()
~ci CO <D ~ I.() (0 <D a.6 ..¢ ri ~ ri ..¢
u..
~
('I")

~ s: ~
m
Q)
"5
0
Z so

ro 0 0 0 0 0 N f"-. 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ C") f"-. ~0 I.() ('I) I.() ~ (0 0') 0 (0 f"-. 0

~ N ('I) (0 f"-. (0
Z o 0 0 0 0 0 (0 ~ I.() ('I) N 0> 0 It) (0 f"-. I.()
~ N I.() 0') N
~
('I) f"-. ('I) ~ 1.0
CO
~ ~
0> I.()

o ·c c: 0 ~ 0 0 0_ (0_ 0_ I.() (0 ~ ('I) ~ (0 C") N 0 0 (0 I.() 0') (0_ N 0> 0> N (J)

Q) ro
Q) M ('I) ri ri f"-. (0 N N N N N ri ..¢ cD r-: ri N ~ N ri N ~ co-
......
E ..0
~ -c ..0
·c
(9 ~ .5 ro
~ .~ ro
-I
0

UJ ~.~
~«"O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~(0 ~(0
r- - « ~ ~
(/)f3~
I.L.WC)
0
> ~
..¢
~-.::i
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0(92 fh I I I I

L.....::::>Q) 0
u..0:::
w-
0::: 0
~ -~
o:::Zm ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N ~ ~ N CO (0 f"-. ~ ~ (0 ~ f"-. 0
~
('I) CO f"-. CO C")
CO
~
0 C"")
~
('I) 0> 0')

~ ~...... 0> 0> ~

0')
<{QE ~ I.()
~
0') CO ~ ~ ~ (0 ~ N N 0> 0> 0 N N 0') f"-. It) I.() C") I.()
~
0 (0
('I)

o..~E N ~ (0 ~ ~ ~ f"-. f"-. C") (0 f"-. (0 ~ (0_ (0 N C") f"-. eo 0') CO C") I.() It)

UJ<C~ c: <D ~ a:i ci ..¢ a:i ri N ~ ri ci en ci m ~(0 a:i M a.6 m r-: ri ~~ a.6 a.6
~ ~ m cD -.::i
o....JCI) 0 ~ N N ~ N C") I.() ('I) ~ ~ N N C") N 0')

. ::::> Q) E
I.()

(/)o..~
::j°m
0..-
u, ~
o §
::::>() ...... ~ ...... ~0> ~ ...... ~(0 ...... ~ 0 0

s
(0 (0 (0 0 N f"-. N f"-. 0 I.() N
~
I.()
~
('I) C")
0>
~
I.() I.() C") I.()
~0> ~ N 0 0 (0 0 ~
0 ...... 0 ~ 0') ...... 0 (0
en I.() ......- 0 ~ ~- CO ~ I.() ...... ~
0') I.() ('I) CO
~
0') 0') ('I)
~
I.() I.()

~- ~ N
......- N O_ f"-. O N I.() ('I) I.() ...... 0 CO ('I)

~ ......
C")
~ C") ~- N ~a.6 a.6
CO_

~ m a:i a:i r-: a:i <D

0::: ri I.() cD ~~ ~ ci (O-
N N ...... ci N
~ ~ N ci
N- m
e~~
T""
N N (0
::::> N
co
w

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... f--
~ ~ en co en ~ co N ...... ~(0 ...... ~0> ~ (0 ~(0 I.() 0>~
N 0 ~
0 0 0 N N N I.()
~
0> It) I.() 0')
~
T""

0 0 0 ...... N f"-. (0 co 0> f"-. N 0> N 0> co N I.() 0

......- (0 ~-
0> ('I) It)

- ~ en en ~
T""

0 0 0 I.() I.()
...... f"-. N ......-
0 C"") It) It) co eo en C") I.() co N It)
I.() C")

~ r-:
ro t.ri a.6 ci <D C") ~ M m ~ m Lti ci a.6 ~ M ~ I.() m
~
M cD a> co ci ci ~ C") M ~ 0
W
C")
~ N ...... (0 ('I)
~ ...... ('I) I.() ~ ~ ~ ~ C") I.() I.() I.() ~ C") T"" T"" T"" co

-
N_
«
T""

T""
fh
c:
~C)
~ N 0 C") ~0 ~(0 ~ E
en ~ ~ en
0 0 N 0 0 f"-. 0 f"-. ...... (0 (0 CO
0 0 0
~ N
I.() I.() ('I) I.() C")
I.() ~ I.() N en en 0 It) N ...... (0 (0 N (0 eo v N ~ f"-. C")
E
en ~ ~ (0 f"-. en ('I) en I.() 0')_ ~ "¢ "¢ en CO CO (0 0_ eo 0 It) 0_ I.() "¢ co_
ro N M N N ~ ~ ~ T"" T"" M ~ Lti cD Lli ~ f"-.- (0 to ~ ~ ~ ri ......- 0') N cD 0 c:
m
u C"")
C T"" w
~
Q)

E
«
fh
d -I "0
Q)

z ~ I.() (0 f"-. CO 0') 0 ~ N ~ CO (0 f"-.('I) Lt) CO 0> 0 ~ N C") ~0> I.() (0 f"-. CO 0> 0 ~ N ('I)
« ~
:::> m f"-. f"-. f"-. f"-. f"-. CO CO eo eo CO CO eo CO CO 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> en en en 0 0 0 0 ~ (3
Q)
~ en
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0> 0> 0> en
~ ~ 0>
~ 0>
~
0>
~
0> en
~ 0> 0 0 0 0
0 c:
~ ~
0> 0> 0> 0') 0') 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0') 0')
0::: N N N N
~
T"" T"" T"" T"" T"" T"" T"" T""
 c::
o
~
CO
N
c::
CO
~
o
.......
c::
Q)
l- ..... ,.bI
I- C)Q)

:i:co
:::J
o -- E-
...........
ca-.::t"

C)
oC/)
I

I ctS:2.
Q) T
o
T

tE
o
en
c::
o
en
en
E
-c
« I I I 1 I I
I

==
0
~
.~ c: c
~~ CIJ 0

~=-
C5Ci5 C :;::;
0 "Cii
;;
'-- 0
"Cii
e'";
C)-.::t"
0..
0
o..C/)
0- W
:;:.c!>
E- .....C I-
LL.
C)

:i: CO I

0 C
CO 0
>, Z
~
 co eo eo I"'- M eo N eo CO M ..q eo CO M 0 eo 0) CO ..q M CO 0 I!) I"'- ..q N 0 "<::t

--
"r""" "r"""
..q eo 0> 0> 0 ..q N CO I"'- eo CO M ..q CO I"'- 0 CO CO N ..q
~ 0 ..q
~ N CO
~LO 0 0 "r""" I.{) "r"""
..q ..q 0> 0> ..q "<::t 0_ I.{) M I!)
N 0> I!) M~ "r""" N 0 N~ M I"'- "r""" I!) 0 0 (I") I.{)
~ ci
ci ~ N ..q- cD ~
--N
.....J cD ~ a) cD ~ a) a5 N M N a) N- O>- cD ci I"'- L6 M a) t.O
« ~ M
~
--
eo
"r"""
eo eo eo eo I"'- ~0
"r"""
..q N M 0 0> t- N 0> l"'- t- t- CO I"'- N N
~
I!)
I- ~ ~
"r""" "r""" "r"""
I.C)
"r""" N "r""" "r""" "r"""

0
I-

-
o
~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M
(I")
I'-
0
I!)
I.{)~
"r"""
0>
0
0
M ~
0)
CO CO
N
I"'-~ CO
"r"""
I.C)
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--
"<::t
N
a5
N
"'0
"'0

~
~
CO

CiS 0..
0.. cJ,
o
o
N
CO
en
ro
0 0 0 0 0
M
0> 0
"r"""
N CO
N~ CO ~
CO
N
..q
0>
0>
eo
..q
CO
I"'-
0>
0
0>
"r"""
N
0
CO
eo
M
CO
M
0>
0>
I"'-
0>
N
..q
M
0
0>
I"'-
CO
0>
0
"<::t
CO --
0
I.C)
,....
eo 0
0>
---- --
M
M CO
0>
0
0>
N eo
0
0 M
I"'-
CO
CO
CO
V
,....
,....
0
o
a
c!
as
(I") "r"""

en
cD ~ L6 cD cD L6 ~ ri -.::i M ~ ci N M
--
"(i)
ri cD L6 "<::t- L6 L6 ci (f")
-c N u..
--
"r""" "r""" M
~ .J::. :2
ro "5
0> 0
Z (f)

0 0 0 0 0 N
--N
t- O 0
-- M ,.... ..q I!) M I.{)
-- -- CO 0> 0 CO I"'- 0 N ,....
M CO t- CO

--
eo t- I.{)
"r""" "r"""

0 0 0 0 0 CO CO 0> I.C) I.{) M N 0> 0 0 I.{) N I!) 0> N "r""" M M V I!)

c 0
ro ri M M ri
0 0 0 0
1"'--
CO
cD
0 I!) CO "r""" "r""" M ..q 0
CO 0
N N N N M ~ cD
M N
,....~
CO I.C)

ri N
0> CO_
"r"""
"r"""

N M N ~
N 0> 0)_ N 0>
CO-
O> I"'-
.0
.0
"i::
ro
C)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
----
CO
--
"r"""
CO

~ ~
--
0
> "r"""
I I I I
0 I I I I
en I I I I

0
~

"r"""

~
"r"""
0
I!)
"r"""
0>
CO
CO
0>
..q
~
~
~
~..q
~
0
CO
N
~ --,....
N
M
N
0>
0>
0>
0>
"r"""
"r"""
..q
N
0
CO
N
CO
N
,....
0>
M
t-
~
,.... CO 0>
I!) -- -- --
I.{)
CO
M
I"'-
I.{)
--~ --L6
0
..q
M
0
CO
..q
I"'-
I"'-
M
0)
CX)
0')
M

--
CO

--
N CO ..q I"'- M_ CO I"'- CO CO CO N M_ CO M I.{) LO
as as ro M L6
"r"""

~ M CL> -.::i
-- ~L6
ri ci ci a) a)
C cD ~ ci ~ M- N "r"""
N
a)
M
a)
M CO ~ ~ C"') N N N 0>
0 "r""" N N "r""" I.{) "r"""
I.C)
E

I'- CO I!) I.{) (I") I.{) ..q 0> I"'- CO C"') M CO 0 N ..q l"'- I.{) N ,.... 0
,.... I.{)
--~~ N
~
I"'- "r""" I'- ~..q 0 0
~
--
..q I.{) 0) 0 0 CO 0> M 0 0> 0> M CO 0 ..q 0 0> CO I"'- 0 CO
N
~
I!)
I!)
~
"r""" "r"""
..q
~ 0 N M ~ I"'- 0 CO 0> L() I"'- 0 CO I!) I"'- ('t')
as
M 0 I"'-
0>_ I"'-~ I'-~ N
as
I.{) "r"""

ro ~
-- ~ N L6 N
--
ci N
~ N M L6 cD ci a) I"'- cD CO- N N- "r"""
0- I!)- a)
~0 co
"r""" "r""" "r""" "r"""
"r""" "r""" "r""" N M N N "r"""

~ N
:J
LU

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
-- --
'--
,.... ..q ,.... ~0> ~ ~
~ ~ co
--
0 0> 0> co N N 0> N N 0> co L() 0) L()
0 0 I!) L() "r"""
eo ..- C;;
,.... ~N
--
0 0 0 l"'- N 0> M L() I"'- CO CO 0> I'- N 0> N 0> CO CO N L() 0 N 0

--
..q N I'- CO

--
0 0 0 I"'- 0>_ 0> 0 M I"'- I.!l I!) CO_ CO L() 0> C"') L() CO I!) "<::t_
..n
..n ..q
L() I!)

L6 L6 ~
ro M ci cD M M a)
,.... a) L6 ci ~ M a) M cD a) ro ci ci ~ M (I")~
ci
~ -e ~
"r"""

-- --
"r"""
"r""" N I'- CO M C"') L() ..q "<::t M I.{) I!) L() M "r""" "r""" "r""" CO
Ci5 "r""" N_
"r"""

,.... ,.... ~ ,.... ,....

----N ~--M
0 0 0 0 0 L() 0> N L()
~
0> "r""" N 0 M N M 0 ,....
0 0 L()
CO ~ CO
CO
M "r""" "r"""
N
CO
..q
CO CO
M
L()
,....
"<::t L() N 0> 0>
~
0 I!)
0>_ ..q
N
..q ~
CO
0>
CO
CO
N
CO
0
CO 0 0 I.!l
CO 0 LO "<::t CO
cD cD M ,....
--
M 0> CO 0>_ M_ 0>_
M ~ L6 cD L6 -.::i ~
-- -- ci
N cD C"')
0 N N a)
0 ro "r""" "r""" "r""" "r"""
~
N o "r"""

?s i::
a;
,"

,.... ,.... -- ,.... ....I

Z 16 L() CO ,....
CO 0) 0 N M ~ L() CO CO 0> 0 "r""" N C"') ~ I.C) CO I"'- CO 0> 0 "r""" N
0
M «
:::> c I'- I'- CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0 0 0 I-

--
I'-

-- -- -- -- -- -- --
0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0 0 0 0
~
C/) 0> 0> 0>, 0> 0) 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
~ 0
u:: ~ "r""" "r""" ~ "r""" "r""" "r""" "r""" "r""" "r""" "r""" "r""" "r""" "r""" "r""" "r""" N N N N
1-.
 Page 1 of 1

Susan Ginsburg

From: Belz, Janice S [BelzJS@state.gov1

Sent: Wednesday, August 27,20035:16 PM
To: Susan Ginsburg
Cc: MESwope@9-11commission.gov; Terry Rusch
Subject: RE: Thanks and

Susan,
Countries are assigned to regions basically in accordance with State Dept regional breakdowns; the most
confusing would probably be Near East/South Asia, which includes Middle Eastern, North African and South
Asian countries. I believe the chart I sent includes most refugee producing countries in each region, but if it
wasn't clear please let me know.
As for the Secretary's recommendations for the annual ceiling, they are formed in the annual Report to Congress
which is prepared jointly by DOS (PRM), DHS (BCIS) and HHS (ORR). In the Report, we provide narrative detail
about the proposed caseloads and ceilings for each region, though we do not provide specific ceilings by country.
In the case of an unforeseen disaster, we can either reallocate unused numbers from one region to another,
access any unused unallocated reserve numbers (both of these options require notification to Congress) or seek
a Presdential determination in support of additional numbers.

f you think it would be helpful to discuss these questions by phone, please let us know. We could easily arrange
a conference call. I'm working on getting you the flow chart on SAO processing -- cleaning up the draft I
described at our meeting.
Regards,
Jan

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Ginsburg [mailto:sginsburg@9-11commission.gov]
sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:36 AM
To: BelzJS@state.gov
Cc: MESwope@9-11commission.gov
Subject: Thanks and

Jan,
Thanks for the spreadsheet, that's helpful. Would you kindly send a list of what countries are in each
regional category, and for NE/SA, would you send a breakdown of admissions by country by year? That
would be great.
A couple of process questions -- When the Secretary sends his/her memorandum of recommendation on
the annual ceiling to the President, is any other cabinet Secretary involved, and does the memorandum
specify country of origin for recommended refugee numbers? What happens when there is a disaster that
precipitates unanticipated demands?

Thank you.

Susan
 J.lil~4/01
--,-- 01: 09 FAX
'lLf~~·· III 002/005.
• wI HF(L

Proposed Security_Enh~cements to the

United States Refugee Admi.ssions Program

N6~ember 13, 200~

II

Following the september terrorist attacks on the United

States, all refugee admissions to the United States were
suspehded. In Oct~ber; an interagency group .rep;-esented :by
State, Justice, FBI, INS, CIA 'and NSC,initiated a review of the
United states re~ugee admis'sions program. The purpose of the
re-view was to aSE!eSS eXisting procedure, examine vulnerabilities
and make recommendations to ~ance security of the program.
The refugee admissions program is managed jointly by the
Department of State and the INS. ~l refugee admissions to· the
"United states remain suspended pending approva.l of these
recommendations and Presidential approval of the Refugee
Adm.i~sions Ceiling for FY200~. ':
.....
" . The following recommendations. address the security o~ the
refugee· program, offering initiatives for immediate
'implementation and outline longer-term improvements to program
.operations. In accordance with HSPD-1 and HSPD-2, the Homeland
Security Council should review and decide whether to accept
these re90mmendations for implementation by appropriate
agenc~eei·." Th~ INS will evaluate additional resource needs posed
by these new requirements and will' seek appropriate budget
allocations for FY'03. The INS does not believe that
implementing these requirements will result in a reduction in
number" of refuge~s processed and admitt~d to the United St-a.te·s
in no, 02'•
.R~c~endatioD #1: Names of a11 refugee applicants' s~~ll be
checked· in ehe'Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) prior'
.to. ~NS 1nterviews. Docuaen~ation.indicating the results of the
check ~- positive or negative -- shall be
providea 'in advance· of
.the'ZNS interview $0 that the interviewing officer c~'explore
any·~nfor.mation generated by the che~k. Documentation shall be
inclu~ed in individual ~efugee travel packets. For those ·
refugees approyed prior to November 1, a new CLASS aheek will be
·perfo.rmed and' the results ,.,il1 be' included in the travel paeket ..

Action~ Department of State, INS, FBI

,Redomm~dation 12': :In select.ed cases, CLA:SS checks wi11 be

supp1emented with Se~urity Advisory Opinions (SAO)•. SAOs are a
higher level of
security check based on names and other
 .. ~
11/141'01 01:10 FAX
1lI 003/005

biographic infor.mation that w~11 be perfor.med on a11 males aged

26 through 50 years who were born 'in or a~e'nationals of certain
countries listed at Tab A.~ ~his applies to a1ready-approved
refugees in this category~ho'hav.e not yet traveled and to those
scheduled for LNS interview in the future. SAOs perfor.med on
refugee applicants pr:i..or to November 1 shall be "redone. ' T4~ FBI
~d CIA ~ill provide State with a response, ~ither positive or
~egative; within 60 days. %f after ~5 days State has uot
received a .esponS8, sta~e sho~d request an opi~ion witbin'the
remai21i%:lg 1S days. Po~itive response from ~:I and CIA are
required befo~e a refugee subject to this SAO re~ireme~t ~y
travel. For those al:eady approved for ~ravel, this ch~ck will
occur p~ior to depar.~ur$ for the O'.'S. For those not yet
i~terviewed, an SAO would take place prior to an %NS intervie~.
Doc~~~atiou indicati~g ~e,results of the SAO wil1 be included
in each indiv1dual's refug~e travel,packet ae _ record ~hat the
check has been completed •
. .~.. .
oW
",'
Action: ~S" Department of State; FBI, CIA

Rec~endation #3: For each refugee applicant whose applic~tiQn

is based on an A£fidavit of Relationship (AOR), the family
re1ationsbip of the applicant shall be verified t~rough an
add1tional security review. This XNS review will.be performed
by (i) ohecking the anchor ~elative's alien file ana (i1)
checking the name of the anchor rela~ive against appropr~ate
databases to· identi~ sensi~~ve persons. Documentation of ~he
INS review and fiDal approval of the case shall be included in
th~ refugee travel packet.
,-,,,
. .
Action: INS, Department of State, FBI

Reeommendation"4: ~S, in aonsultation with FB~t w111 develop

criteria,to pelect prev1ouS1y approveo 4ases for ti1~ review and
possible ~eintarview.

Action: r.NS, Departmen~·of State, FBI

R.eoommendation is: :In order to prevent. substitutions, t.he"

identity of all refugee trave~erG shall be verified,agaiust
travel packet photos be~ore they board flights to the United
States. ,All new Re£ugee applicants 'shall be phoeographed ftam
the front and side view, and these photographs will be included,
on the ];·-5'9'0'farm. Refugee-supplied photogra.phs wi11 no longer
be accepted. Khan technologically feasib1e, digital'
,photography shall be e:mp1oyed to electronic:ally embed refugee
photo~~phs in I~S90 for.ms.
 ..... _ .•.:...w:.....;.;. •...•

raJ !l 04/005

Action: INS, Department of State, FBI

RecammeDdatio~ 16: ~l app;oved refugee applicants, Visas-92/93

cases, ana 1ong·ter.m parolees shall be fingerprintea by INS upon
arrival at Por~-of-Entry (POE). If·the approved applicant,~or
admission is from J:ranl Iraq; Libya, Sudan or any other eountry
so designated, additional· fingerprinting proeedures mu.t be
completed ·in accordance wieh regulatory requirements for
pro~essiDg of Specia1 ~nter~~t·~ien~.· AssooD as
.tecbnologica11y feasib1el approved ~e£ugee.applicants, Vlsas-
92/93 eases,· and long-ter.m parolees shall be finge~rinted by
INS at overseas processing posts as well as upon arrival.

Action: INS, ·Depart~ent of state, FBI

,.
Ree~enda~ion #7; T.he FBI shall be no~ified of all refugee ...
f11ghts·no'1ater
. ~ ·six business
/
days prior 'to arrival,
thrQugh the electronic provision of a flight manifest~ The
manifest:; wi11. include n.,me:s, elat.esof birth, alien n'lllltbers,.
gender, nationa1ities.and family relat~onships of ~S-approged
:refugees aboa.rcl the fligh1:.- When t.echnologically feasible, the
~BI will be provided with electronic photographs ana· fingerprint
records of a11 ar~iving .e£ugees. FBZ agents shall have the
opportunity 'Co·interview. any refugees of conC!ern at: the Port of
Entry prior to admission. Interviews shall be coordinated at
the local level betweea the Port'Director and 'local ~BI
persollDel. Should the i'BXwish to question the applicant
furt:her, ms shall parole the applicatt1:'for a deferred ..
inspection and ·p~ace t.hat applic8l!1t in ms custody pendi~~{a
deC!:i.
~io:a.by the FBI:. " ,.

.Action: INS, Departm~nt of State, FBI

:
paramount. While the Administration continues to strongly support a generous and healthy refugee
admissions program, we have determined that we must first recover from the setbacks of FY 2002 {'
before we can grow the program. '

In FY 2003, the Administration will continue to take the necessary steps to restore the
admissions program. We will:

• Continue to collaborate with our voluntary agency partners and UNHCR to identify
new populations for processing;
• Send officers overseas to explore, and where feasible, develop these caseloads into a
healthy processing pipeline;
• Continue the worldwide deployment of our new, fully automated admissions
tracking system that will further strengthen processing capacity and security;
• Provide significant additional resources to UNHCR to enhance its resettlement
referral capacity throughout the world;
• Develop a voluntary agency referral mechanism to engage organizations providing
assistance to refugees overseas in this important endeavor; and
• Examine the possibility of expanding family reunification-based access to the
refugee program if appropriate safeguards can be established.

Finally, as a result of this year's process of reviewing the characteristics and circumstances
of refugee populations around the globe, it has become clear that many persons of concern cannot
meet u.s. statutory requirements for refugee admission. The current refugee definition is rooted in
the 1951 Refugee Convention and requires that applicants establish persecution or a well-founded (
fear of persecution on account of one of five grounds (race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion). This standard, developed in the Cold War era,
precludes eligibility for hundreds of thousands of individuals in compelling humanitarian
circumstances who did not directly experience persecution or whose fears are not based on one of
the five protected grounds. Many of these individuals fled civil disorder or generalized violence
and remain in precarious situations without obvious durable solutions: We are already engaged in a
review of existing statutory requirements for u.S. refugee admission with a goal of ensuring access
to those most in need of humanitarian protection and may need to consider the possibility of
legislative changes.

As we look to restore the U.S. admissions program to the growth pattern we anticipated
before September 11, we have not approached FY 2003 with significantly higher numbers as a goal.
We are limited by the challenge of successfully streamlining new security requirements, the need to
restore integrity to the program, and the continuing need to identify new refugee populations that
are readily accessible and statutorily eligible for admission to the United States. We must also
remain inindful that there are substantial unmet needs around the world in the provision of life-
sustaining humanitarian assistance to refugees. The Administration's FY 2003 ceiling of 70,000 is
based on identified caseload of 50,000, with an unallocated reserve of 20,000. Assuming success
with the initiatives cited above, it may well prove possible to increase admissions - if not
immediately in FY 2003 - then in FY 2004 and beyond. The Administration will use carry-over FY
2002 funds to support up to 70,000 admissions and to strengthen UNHCR resettlement capacity,
(

111
develop caseload, and fund ongoing processing and security upgrades. The following report lays
out how the Administration will work toward measured, sustainable growth in numbers and
restoring the admissions program to where we want it to be.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Foreword
1
1. Overview of U.S. Refugee Policy
4
II. Refugee Admissions Program for FY 2003
4
A. FY 2003 Ceilings 5
B. Admissions Procedures
5
1. Eligibility Criteria 5
2. The Worldwide Priority System for FY 2003 5
a) Priority 1
5
b) Priority 2
6
c) Priority 3
7
3. INS Refugee Adjudications 7
a) INS Overseas Operations
7
b) Case Presentation to INS
8
c) The Eligibility Determination
8
d) Additional Case Processing
9 I
4. Processing Activities of the Department of State
9
a) Overseas Processing Services
9
b) Cultural Orientation
10
c) Transportation
10
d) Reception and Placement

11
III. Regional Programs
11
A. Africa 11
1. Religious Freedom in Africa 11
2. Voluntary Repatriation in Africa 12
3. Resettlement or Local Integration of Refugees within Africa 12
4. Third-country Resettlement outside the Region 13
5. FY 2002 Admissions from Africa 13
6. FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in Africa 14
7. Possible Future GroupslPrograms
16
B. East Asia 16
1. Religious Freedom in East Asia 16
2. Voluntary Repatriation in East Asia 17
3. Resettlement or Local Integration of Refugees within East Asia 17
4. Third-country Resettlement outside the Region
 Page
17
5. FY 2002 Admissions from East Asia 18
6. FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in East Asia
18
7. Possible Future OroupslPrograms
20
C. Europe 20
1. Former Soviet Union and Baltic States (FSU) 20
a) Religious Freedom in the FSU 21
b) Third-Country Resettlement outside the Region 21
c) FY 2002 Admissions from the FSU 21
d) FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in the FSU 22
e) Possible Future GroupslPrograms 22
2. Southeastern Europe 22
a) Religious Persecution in Southeastern Europe 22
Voluntary Repatriation to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia
b) 23
c) Resettlement or Local Integration in Europe 23
d) Third-Country Resettlement outside the Region 23
e) FY 2002 Admissions from Southeastern Europe 24
FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in Southeastern Europe
f)
25
D. Latin America and the Caribbean 25
Religious Freedom in Latin America and the Caribbean
1. 25
2. Resettlement or Local Integration within Latin
America and the Caribbean 26
Third-country Resettlement outside the Region
3. 26
FY 2002 Admissions from Latin America and the Caribbean
4. 27
FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in Latin America and the Caribbean
5.
28
E. Near East and South Asia 28
1. Religious Freedom in the Near East and South Asia 28
Voluntary Repatriation in the Near East and South Asia
2. 28
3. Resettlement or Local Integration within the Near East
and South Asia 29
4. Third-country Resettlement outside the Region
29
FY 2002 Admissions from the Near East and South Asia
5. 30
FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in the Near East and South Asia
6. 30
7. Possible Future GroupslPrograms
31
F. Unallocated Reserve
32
IV. Domestic Impact of Refugee Admissions
 LIST OF TABLES
Page

4
1. 'Refugee Admissions in FY 2001 and FY 2002 and the
FY 2003 Ceiling
32
II. Median Age and Sex of Refugee Arrivals, FY 2001
33
III. Select Age Categories of Refugee Arrivals, FY 2001
34
IV. Refugee Arrivals by State of Initial Resettlement, FY 2001

36
v. Refugee Arrivals by Country of Origin, FY 2001
38
Estimated Costs of Refugee Processing, Movement, and Resettlement
VI.
39
CY 2001 UNHCR Resettlement Referrals by Resettlement Country
VII.
 L Overview of u.s. Refugee Policy
Resettlement in third countries, including the U.S., is considered for refugees in urgent need
of protection as well as for those for whom other durable solutions are not feasible. In seeking
durable solutions for refugees, the U.S. gives priority to the safe voluntary return of refugees to their
h.omelands. This policy, recognized in the Refugee Act of 1980, is also the preference of the
international community, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR). If safe voluntary repatriation is not feasible, other durable solutions are
sought, including resettlement in countries of asylum within the region and in third countries.

According to UNHCR, at the end of2001 there were some 12 million refugees in the world.
Under the authority in the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended, the U.S.
contributes to the programs ofUNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the
International Organization for Migration (lOM), and other international and non-governmental
organizations that provide relief and assistance to refugees. During FY 2002, the U. S. supported
major relief and repatriation programs throughout the world. Our assistance attempted to address
immediate protection needs of refugees as well as to ensure that basic needs for water, sanitation,
food, health care, shelter and education are met. The U.S. continues to press for the most effective
use of international resources directed to the urgent needs of refugees and internally displaced
. persons.

For many years, the U.S. was one often countries that worked with UNHCR on a regular
basis to provide resettlement opportunities for persons in need of this form of international
protection or durable solution. In addition to the U.S., the other countries included Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, and six countries in Western Europe. The dramatic increase in asylum-
seekers arriving in many of these countries, particularly via alien smuggling operations, has
diminished the willingness of some countries to accept refugees through UNHCR referrals. At the
same time, considerable effort has been expended in recent years to bring other countries into the
resettlement "community." At present, some 18 countries express willingness to work with
UNHCR in resettlement of refugees in need. While the overall number referred by UNHCR and the
percentage resettled by various countries fluctuate from year to year, the U.S. is committed to
accepting at least 50% ofUNHCR referrals. In calendar year 2001, that percentage was 55% (see
Table VII).

Based on U.S. law, the U.S. considers for admission as refugees persons of special
humanitarian concern who can establish persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The legal basis of the refugee admissions program is the Refugee Act of 1980. With some
modification, the Act largely adopted the defmition of "refugee" contained in the 1951 United
Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by its 1967 Protocol. The U.S.
definition, which may be found in Section 101 (a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), as amended, is as follows:

"The term 'refugee' means: (A) any person who is outside any country of such
person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is
outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who
 is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail
himself or herself of the protection of that country because of persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or
(B) in such circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation
(as defined in section 207 (e) of this Act) may specify, any person who is
within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person
having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually
residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.

The term 'refugee' does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or
otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.

For purposes of determinations under this Act, a person who has been forced to
abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been
persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other
resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to
have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has
a well-founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a
procedure or be subj ect to persecution for such failure, refusal or resistance (
shall be deemed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
political opinion."

The foreign policy interests of the U.S. have been advanced by our willingness to ease the
burden on first asylum countries through resettlement. In some locations in Africa, for example, the
prompt resettlement of politically sensitive cases has helped defuse regional tensions. During the
past few years, U.S. resettlement efforts in the Middle East and the Balkans have helped energize
efforts by UNHCR and other countries to ensure that this form of protection is accorded those in
need and that first asylum is maintained for the larger population.

With regard to refugees resettled here, the U.S. Government promotes economic self-
sufficiency as quickly as possible, limiting the need for public assistance and encouraging refugees
to contribute to the diversity and enrichment of our country. Federally funded programs
administered by individual states and the District of Columbia provide cash and medical assistance,
training programs, employment and other support services to arriving refugees. A variety of
institutional providers perform these services, including the voluntary agencies that provide initial
reception and placement services under cooperative agreements with the Department of State.

Even before the events of September 11, the context in which the U.S. refugee admissions
program operates worldwide had changed dramatically, shifting from focusing primarily on large
groups concentrated in single locations (refugees from Vietnam, the former Soviet Union and
Bosnia) to reaching out to refugees of some 65 nationalities scattered in often remote locations. (

2
While we believe this diversified approach is consistent with the Refugee Act's intent that persons
most in need of resettlement should benefit from the program, overseas processing efforts face
numerous challenges. Deteriorating security conditions in refugee camps, the inadequacy of
medical facilities required to conduct thorough medical screenings, and concern about integrity,
including fraud and corruption, are but some of the issues confronting the program. On the
domestic side, of those refugees now arriving, far fewer have close family members living in the
U.S. who are available to provide support and facilitate the integration process. When combined
with the significant linguistic diversity, wide-ranging educational/employment histories of the
refugee population and the shortage of available affordable housing, resettlement agencies have had
to adapt in order to meet the increasing demands of the program.

We are taking numerous steps to address these problems. Overseas, we have expanded the
number of permanent processing locations by opening a refugee processing hub in Accra for West
Africa and a processing facility in Damascus during FY 2001. We have engaged the services of
10M to assist with medical screening in locations lacking appropriate services and to move refugees
in insecure locations to safe sites where resettlement processing and adjudication by INS can take
place. INS has provided the leadership within the U.S. Government to aggressively address the
problems identified in the family reunification program. Domestically, the Department of State has
worked with the resettlement agencies to implement comprehensive standards of care for the
Reception and Placement (R&P) program and increased funding to assist local affiliates providing
improved services to refugees. Given the hiatus in refugee arrivals at the beginning of FY 2002 and
the slow rate of admissions throughout most of the year, the Department of State also suspended the
per capita funding arrangement negotiated in FY 2001 for the local affiliate offices and provided
cost-based funding to ensure that nationwide resettlement capacity was maintained during 2002.

3
lL Refugee Admissions Program/or FY 2003
A. Ceilings

TABLE I

REFUGEE ADMISSIONS IN FY 2001, FY 2002

ANDFY2003

FY2001 FY2002 FY2002 FY2003

REGION ACTUAL CEILING ARRIVALS CEILING

Africa 19,021 22,000 2,505 20,000

East Asia* 3,725 4,000 3,512 4,000
Europe
Southeastern Europe 15,777 9,000 5,480 2,500
Fonner Soviet Union 15,748 17,000 9,990 14,000
Latin America/Caribbean 2,973 3,000 1,929 2,500
Near EastJSouth Asia 12,060 15,000 3,697 7,000
Unallocated Reserve ** 20,000 I
\
Total 69,304 70,000 27,113 70,000

* This figure includes Amerasians and their family members who enter as immigrants under a
special statutory provision but receive the same benefits as refugees.

** The Unallocated Reserve is to be used if/where the need for additional numbers develops and
only upon notification to the Congress.

The President determined, after appropriate consultation with Congress, that special
circumstances exist so that, for the purpose of admission under the limits established above and
pursuant to section 101(a)(42)(B) of the INA, certain persons, if they otherwise qualify for
admission, may be considered as refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S. although they
are within their countries of nationality or habitual residence. Proposed for such in-country
processing for FY 2003 are persons in Cuba, Vietnam, and the FSU.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is also authorized to adjust to the status
of penn anent resident alien 10,000 persons who have been granted asylum in the U.S. and have
been in the U.S. for at least one year, pursuant to Section 209(b) of the INA.

4
B. Admissions Procedures

1. Eligibility Criteria
Applicants for refugee admission to the U.S. must meet the following criteria:

• Meet the definition of "refugee" contained in the U.S. Immigration and

Nationality Act,
• Be among those refugees determined by the President to be of special
humanitarian concern to the United States,
• Be otherwise admissible under United States law, and
• Not be firmly resettled in any foreign country.

Although a refugee may meet the above criteria, the existence of the U.S. refugee
admissions program does not create any entitlement for that person to be admitted to the
U.S. The admissions program is a legal mechanism for admitting refugees who are
among those classes of persons of particular interest to the U.S. Applicants who fall
within the priorities established for the relevant nationality or region are presented to the
INS for determination of eligibility for admission under Sections 101 (a) (42) and 207 of
the INA.

2. Worldwide Priority Systemfor FY-2003

The worldwide processing priority system sets guidelines for the orderly management
and processing of refugee applications for admission to the U.S. within the established
annual regional ceilings. The issue of whether a person is a "refugee" under U.S. law
and the priority that person may be assigned for consideration ofhislher case are
separate and distinct. Just as qualifying for refugee status does not confer a right to
resettlement in the U.S., assignment to a particular priority does not entitle a person to
admission to the U.S. as a refugee.

a) Priority 1
Priority 1 (P-I) is reserved for compelling protection cases or refugees for whom no
other durable solution exists who are referred to the program by UNHCR or a U.S.
Embassy. Priority 1 is available to persons of any nationality. The U.S. historically
resettles approximately 50% of all of UNHCR' s resettlement referrals worldwide.

b) Priority 2
This priority is used for groups of special humanitarian concem to the U.S.
designated for resettlement processing. It includes specific groups (within certain
nationalities) identified by the Department of State in consultation with NGO's,
UNHCR, INS, and other experts. Some P-2 groups are processed in their country of
ongm.

5
c) Transportation (
The Department of State makes available funds for the transportation of refugees
resettled in the U.S. through a program administered by 10M. The cost of
transportation is provided to refugees in the form of a loan. Beneficiaries are
responsible for repaying these costs over time, beginning six months after their
arrival in the U.S.

d) Reception and Placement (R&P)

The Department of State (PRM) maintains cooperative agreements with ten

organizations, including nine private voluntary agencies and one state government
agency, to provide initial resettlement services to atriving refugees. The R&P
agencies agree to provide initial reception and core services (including housing,
furnishings, clothing, food, and medical referrals) to arriving refugees. These
services are now provided according to new standards of care developed jointly by
the NGO community and U.S. government agencies in FY 2001, and implemented in
FY 2002. The ten organizations maintain a nationwide network of nearly 450
affiliated offices to provide services. This network was severely strained by the lull
in arrivals following September 11, with no per capita funds from the Department of
State. As a result, PRM altered its funding during FY 2002 to permit reimbursement
of some overhead costs incurred by local affiliates.
['
\.
The R&P agreement obligates the participating agencies to provide the following
services, using R&P funds supplemented by cash and in-kind contributions from
private and other sources:

• Sponsorship;
• Pre-arrival resettlement planning, including placement;
• Reception on arrival;
• Basic: needs support (including housing, furnishings, food, clothing) for at
least 30 days;
• Community orientation;
• .Referrals to health, employment, and other services as needed; and
• Case management and tracking for 90-180 days, depending upon availability
of anchor relatives.

('
I.

10
 • P-2 In-country processing programs: (
\

Former Soviet Union

This P-2 designation applies to individuals, including Jews, Evangelical
Christians, and Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox religious activists
identified in the Lautenberg Amendment, with close family in the United
States.

Cuba
Included in this P-2 program are: former political prisoners, members of
persecuted religious minorities, human rights activists, forced-labor
conscripts, persons deprived of their professional credentials or subjected
to other disproportionately harsh or discriminatory treatment resulting
from their perceived or actual political or religious beliefs or activities,
and others who appear to have a credible claim that they will face
persecution.

Vietnam
This P-2 designation covets the residual caseload resulting from the
former Orderly Departure Program (ODP) and Resettlement Opportunity
for Vietnamese Returnees (ROVR), and the McCain amendment
programs. It also includes Amerasian immigrants, whose numbers are
counted in the refugee ceiling.

• P-2 Groups of Humanitarian Concern:

The admissions program is now also processing several new P-2 groups
and continues dynamically to develop new P-2 designations. Those
currently being processed include:

__Somali Bantus in Kenya

__Baku Armenians in Russia
__Iranian religious minorities, primarily in Austria

The Department of State anticipates adding other groups to this list during
FY 2003. Among groups under consideration for possible P-2
designation are African long-stayers in Russia, mixed marriage cases in
:Mkugwa camp in Tanzania, Congolese in Angola, and Kuname Eritreans
in Walanibhy Camp in Ethiopia.

c) Priority 3
At present, Priority 3 (P-3) eligibility is extended to certain nationalities for spouses,
unmarried sons and daughters, and parents of U.S. citizens and of persons lawfully
admitted to the U.S. as permanent resident aliens, refugees, asylees, conditional
residents, and certain parolees.

6
 • Nationalities eligible for P-3 processing during FY-2003:

-- Burundi
-- Congo (Brazzaville)
-- Congo (DROC)
-- Sudan

During FY 2003, the Administration will continue to explore are-design of the

family reunification component of the admissions program. We are investigating the
plausibility of developing a more secure, more fraud resistant and more widely
available family reunification priority that would replace the existing P-3 program.
Some progress has already been made by INS to detect and deter relationship fraud.
Consulting with voluntary agencies and the Congress, building on initial reform
efforts and evaluating whether an expanded family-based program provides the most
effective use of resources are all prerequisites to moving forward on this initiative.

3. INS Refugee Adjudications

Section 207 of the INA grants the Attorney General authority to admit, at hislher
discretion, any refugee who is not firmly resettled in a third country, who is determined
to be of special humanitarian concern, and who is admissible to the U.S. as an
immigrant. This authority has been delegated to the INS. In overseas refugee
processing, the INS has the statutory role of decision-maker, determining who meets the
requirements for refugee status and is otherwise admissible to the U.S. under U.S. law.

a) INS Overseas Operations

INS overseas offices are administered by District Offices in Bangkok, Mexico City,
and Rome. One of their major responsibilities is refugee processing. The percentage
of time each office devotes to this activity depends on its refugee caseload, as well as
other workload priorities and the staffing pattern in the office. Overseas refugee
staffing is augmented by temporary duty personnel from domestic asylum offices.
During FY 2002, INS also relied on a cadre of 60 District Adjudications Officers
who received specialized refugee training to supplement overseas refugee
adjudicators. Circuit rides to process refugees are arranged as needed by the INS
overseas offices having geographic jurisdiction. INS relies upon Department of
State Regional Security Officers overseas to assess the security environment at
proposed circuit ride locations prior to committing to circuit ride travel.

. b) Case Presentation to INS

Refugee processing procedures prior to INS eligibility interviews vary. Some

applicants are referred to the U.S. program by officials of U.S. Embassies or
UNHCR (P-l referrals). Other applicants are eligible to apply for the program
directly. These include persons or groups identified under processing priorities as
eligible for resettlement consideration (P-2 and P-3 categories). Generally, the

7
 Department of State arranges for an Overseas Processing Entity (OPE) to conduct
pre-screening interviews and prepare cases for submission to INS. This involves (
. completing the required forms and compiling other necessary documents.

c) The Eligihility Determination

IIi order to be approved as a refugee, an applicant must establish that he or she has
suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion. An INS officer conducts a face-to-face interview of each applicant. The
interview is non-adversarial and is designed to elicit information about the
applicant's claim for refugee status. The officer asks questions about the reasons for
the applicant's departure from the country of origin and problems or fears the
applicant may have had or will have ifreturned to his/her home country. Conditions
in the country of origin are taken into consideration, and the applicant's credibility is
assessed.

INS refugee determinations are made according to a uniformly applied worldwide

standard, but legislation has altered the refugee adjudication process in certain cases.
The Lautenberg Amendment, enacted in 1989 and subsequently extended, mandated
that the Attorney General identify categories of former Soviets (specifically Jews,
Evangelical Christians, Ukrainian Catholics, and Ukrainian Orthodox), Vietnamese,
Lao, and Khmer who were likely targets of persecution and reduced the burden of
proof for these categories in establishing a well-founded fear of persecution. (

Under U.S. law, a person who has committed acts of persecution, or has assisted in
any way in the commission of persecution, on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is not eligible for
classification as a refugee. Refugees may be ineligible for admission to the U.S. on
criminal or security grounds.

d) Additional Case Processing'

Prior to an approved refugee applicant's admission to the United States, he/she must
undergo a medical examination, be fingerprinted, clear a security name check, and
receive a sponsorship assurance. Transportation arrangements are made through the
10M. Arriving refugees, ifnot fingerprinted prior to travel, are printed at the port of
entry and employment is authorized upon admission. After one year, a refugee is
eligible to apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. Five years
after admission, a refugee is eligible to apply for citizenship via naturalization.

(
\

8
4. Processing Activities of the Department of State

a) Overseas Processing Services

In most processing locations, the Department of State, Bureau for Population,

Refugees, and Migration (PRM) engages either an NGO or 10M to manage an OPE
to assist in the processing of refugees for admission to the U.S. In a few locations
where such arrangements are not feasible or are unwarranted due to insufficient
volume, PRM arranges for contract staff to perform this function in u.S. missions
overseas. All of the OPE's pre-screen applicants to determine if they qualify for one
of the applicable processing priorities. They assist applicants with completing
documentary requirements and schedule INS refugee interviews as appropriate. If
the refugee is approved for the u.S. program, OPE staff guide the refugee through
post-adjudication steps, including obtaining medical screening exams and attending
cultural orientation programs. The OPE obtains sponsorship assurances, and, once
appropriate security clearances are obtained, refers the case to 10M for
transportation arrangements to the U.S.

At present, NGO's work under OPE contracts with the Department of State at
locations in Pakistan, Turkey (covering locations throughout the Middle East),
Austria, Kenya (covering East Africa), and Ghana (covering West Africa). 10M
processes refugees in Egypt, the Fonner Yugoslavia, Russia, and Syria. U. S.
government contractors provide processing services in Cuba, India, Jordan, Thailand
and Vietnam.

h) Cultural Orientation

The Department of State strives to ensure that refugees who are accepted for
admissionto the u.s. are prepared for the significant changes they will experience
during the initial phases of resettlement by providing cultural orientation programs
prior to departure for the U.S. It is critical that refugees arrive with a realistic view
of what their new lives will be like, what services are available to them, and what
their responsibilities will be. The goal of orientation efforts is to ensure that all
refugees receive basic information before departure. Every refugee family receives
Welcome to the United States, a resettlement guidebook written in 1996 with input
from refugee resettlement workers and resettled refugees in conjunction with federal
and state government officials. Welcome to the United States is produced in a
number of languages. Through this book, refugees have access to a basic core of
consistent and accurate information about initial resettlement before they arrive. The
material in Welcome to the United States is also available in video format. In
addition, the Department of State enters into cooperative agreements for one- to
tbree- day pre-departure orientation classes for eligible refugees at sites throughout
the world.

9
IlL Regional Programs
In the following regional program overviews, a description of refugee conditions in each region is
provided. In addition, prospects for voluntary repatriation, 'resettlement within the region, and third-
country resettlement are noted.

A. AFRICA
In 2002, flows of refugees throughout the continent of Africa continued to be dynamic.
Even as voluntary refugee repatriation continued from Ethiopia to northern Somalia ("Somaliland"),
conflict in southern Somalia pushed still more Somali refugees into Kenya. As peace progressed in
Sierra Leone, conflict flared in Liberia, generating new refugees whose numbers began to offset
Sierra Leonean returns. There are approximately 3.5 million refugees across the African continent,
25% of the worldwide refugee population. The principle of first asylum is still honored by most
African countries, though in a. number of cases, the newest arrivals have found it difficult to cross
into neighboring countries and receive protection and assistance without threat of refoulement.
Traditionally, refugees in Africa have been allowed to remain - and in most cases to integrate
locally - until voluntary repatriation is possible. However, this tradition of tolerance has begun to
show signs of deterioration, particularly where there have been successive waves of refugees and a
concurrent degradation in the welfare of the host populations.

During the five years prior to FY 2002, admissions of African refugees to the U.S. had been
increasing dramatically, from 6,069 in FY 1997 to 19,021 in FY 2001. PRM established a new
OPE in Accra during FY 2001 as a processing hub for West African cases.

1. Religious Freedom in Mrica

In sub-Saharan Africa, religious tolerance is a generally accepted and widely practiced

principle, even in the midst of ethnic and other conflicts. Ethiopia, with its historic Muslim and
Christian populations, is an excellent example of religious tolerance. However, religious freedom is
a growing concern in Nigeria, wherenorthem states have adopted and expanded Shariah law.
Denial of religious freedom continues to be an important element of the war in Sudan, where the
rise of a militant form of Islam in the dominant North led to efforts to impose Shariah law on all
Sudanese, including Christians and animists. Non-Muslims are disadvantaged in many ways,
including denial of social services and early education. The Government of Sudan conducts and
tolerates attacks on civilians in the predominantly non-Muslim South and is one of the countries
with the worst human rights records. While there is renewed hope for a resolution, the U.S.
admissions program continues its focus on Sudanese victims of religious persecution and war.

2. Voluntary Repatriation in Africa

Despite the large number of protracted refugee situations throughout Africa, voluntary
repatriation to a secure environment remains the most common and the most desirable durable
solution. The peace processes in Sierra Leone and EthiopiaJEritrea for example, have made large-
scale voluntary return possible. By mid 2002, some 51,000 of the Eritrean refugees in Sudan had

11
voluntarily returned. (UNHCR announced that the cessation clause (in the 1951 Geneva Refugee
Convention) will be invoked for Eritrean refugees on December 31, 2002.) The combination of \
growing security in Sierra Leone and insecurity in Liberia, where many had sought refuge, has led
some 171,000 Sierra Leonean refugees to return as of mid 2002. As countries seek to recover from
devastating warfare, reintegration aid will be necessary to ensure that the voluntary return is indeed
a lasting solution.

While Burundi is not yet at peace, in response to pressure from the Tanzanian government
UNHCR is facilitating the voluntary repatriation of some refugees to secure areas there. With the
end of war in Angola, refugees are returning there in large numbers. Voluntary return from
Ethiopia to secure parts of Somalia has continued in 2001 and 2002, with progressive closure of
camps in Ethiopia. Voluntary returns to Somalia from Djibouti began in July. However, continued
insecurity in portions of Somalia means that there will likely be protracted Somali refugee situations
in Kenya and Ethiopia. Both peace and refugee repatriation continue to elude the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DROC).

3. Resettlement or Local Integration of RefugeesWithin Africa

While formal offers of permanent resettlement have rarely been forthcoming from African
countries, the provision of first asylum has been an historic constant. Indefmite first asylum without
threat of refoulement has sometimes reached the level of de facto local integration in places such as
Zambia, Uganda, Sudan and Cote d'Ivoire. However, as attacks in Guinea and political conflict in
Cote d'Ivoire demonstrated in 2000, such local integration can be fragile. Initial efforts in Burkina
Faso, Benin, and South Africa toward the permanent resettlement of small numbers of African /
refugees have not progressed far enough to offer real prospects for expansion.
...

4. Third-country Resettlement Outside the Region

Resettlement in third countries outside the region is an essential durable solution for some
African refugees. The possibility of third-country resettlement can play an important protection
role, given the political and economic volatility in many areas of Africa. With limited opportunities
for complete, permanent integration in neighboring countries and often-protracted periods in
refugee camps before voluntary repatriation becomes an option, the need for third-country
resettlement of African refugees will continue. All resettlement countries, in particular the U.S.,
Canada and Australia, accept resettlement referrals from Africa, but the U.S. program resettled over
66% of all UNHCR referrals there in 2001.

While the United States is the leading country in providing resettlement places for African
refugees, many African refugee groups face an obstacle to success in the U.S. program due to their
"prima facie" refugee status. Many populations have been granted refugee status "en masse," often
under the Organization for African Unity (OAU) Convention, which utilizes different criteria than
the 1951 Convention. As a result, refugees from these groups may not qualify for refugee status in
the United States under current u.s. statutory provisions. UNHCR and the U.S. take these differing
requirements into account when identifying appropriate candidates for the U. S. program.

(
I.

12
 5. FY 2002 Admissions from Africa

In FY 2002, the U.S. resettled 2505 refugees from Africa Five countries (Sudan, Somalia,
Ethiopia, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) continued to account for the majority of refugees resettled from
Africa.

The Africa program was particularly impacted by enhanced security procedures imposed in
the aftermath of September 11. These included security name checks by intelligence and law
enforcement agencies and the INS review of all family relationship cases. Most cases processed in
Africa were affected by one or both of these new requirements. While PRM, INS and other
agencies worked diligently to implement the new requirements, they still caused significant
processing delays. The relationship misrepresentations identified by INS in its ongoing review of
the P-3 caseload resulted in the closure of many cases altogether. At the close of FY 2002,
significant challenges remained to restoring the program while addressing fraud and security issues
adequately.

6. FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in Africa

The Africa ceiling of 20, 000 for FY 2003 reflects the pressing needs of certain groups of
African refugees while also recognizing the security and fraud issues cited above. It also allows for
the logistical and political realities of refugee processing in a chronically difficult environment.
PRM has actively engaged all appropriate offices within the Department of State, the voluntary
agency community, UNHCR, and INS to help identify groups who need resettlement and who will
likely qualify under U.S. law. As a result of these discussions, PRM has identified a number of
target groups for priority processing during FY 2003. (Note that the number of refugees associated
with each group is approximate and represents our most optimistic projections for each.) The effort
to identify groups for future processing will continue throughout the coming year.

FY 2003 admissions program for Africa:

P-1 Referrals/rom UNHCR 2,000

P-2 Somali-Bantus in Kakuma 5,000
P-3 Family Reunification Cases 12,000
Other cases
(including Africans in Moscow) 1,000

Total Ceiling: 20,000

The ceiling is based on an estimate of previously approved refugees who will arrive in the u.S.
during FY 2003 plus new processing activity in FY 2003 that will result in arrivals during the fiscal
year. Some detail of the new populations currently undergoing or under active consideration for
refugee admissions processing is provided below.

13
Somali Bantu
/
(

In FY 2003, we will process the majority of the approximately 12,000 P-2 designated
Somali Bantu refugees in Kenya In July 2002, for security reasons during processing, we began
moving this group from the Dadaab refugee camp to the Kakuma camp. INS will begin
interviewing in September 2002. Arrivals should span FY 2003 and FY 2004. We estimate 5,000
arrivals during FY 2003 .

.Mixed marriage cases in Mkugwa camp Tanzania

This group of approximately 250 Burundi refugees have no local integration prospects and
have little hope of successful repatriation due to their decisions to cross ethnic and tribal lines to
marry. They will be referred for resettlement under the P-2 category by early FY 2003, but those
approved are not likely to travel until FY 2004.

Congolese in Angola

Approximately 450 Congolese have been displaced nine times in the last 13 years and are
currently living in deplorable conditions in Kifangondo Camp. We will work to expeditiously
process this group, likely under P-2, for resettlement during FY 2003. We are also exploring the
possibility of a P-2 designation for approximately 6,600 long-stayer Congolese in the Viana Camps
in Angola. Current conditions in the DRC do not bode well for the repatriation of these long-stayer
populations in the near future.

Kuname Eritreans in Walanibhy Camp Ethiopia

These 4,000 Eritreans have no local integration prospects and are viewed with suspicion by
Eritrea due to their decision to seek refuge in Ethiopia during the war. We will actively pursue an
appropriate P-2 designation for this group during FY 2003.

P-I Individual Referrals from UNHCR

PRM has worked closely with UNHCR to strengthen its resettlement capacity in Africa and
to insert appropriate safeguards into their referral programs in light of the finding of significant
corruption, particularly in Nairobi. UNHCR has developed new operating procedures for referrals
and plans to add resettlement positions in the region. The addition of resettlement-focused
resources will facilitate the identification and referral of individual refugees (and possibly groups)
for whom resettlement is the most appropriate durable solution.

7. Possible Future GroupslPrograms

An obstacle currently hindering our efforts to identify resettlement candidates in Africa is

the absence of reliable registration information on refugee populations. We are working with
UNHCR and the NGO community to redress this inadequacy - which should lead to greater access
to some large populations in West Africa later in 2003. A reliable and consistent registration

14
-program will not only expedite referral and processing of resettlement candidates, but also improve
relief and assistance efforts and address some of the issues of identity fraud of concern to all
organizations involved in providing services.

15
13. EAST ASIA

Thailand is host to the largest population of refugees in East Asia, comprised primarily of
some 130,000 members of Burmese ethnic minorities in encampments along its border with Burma.
Other large populations of refugees in the region are located in Bangladesh and Indonesia. Some
22,000 Burmese Rohingyas remain in Bangladesh after the repatriation of over 200,000 of this
group. In spite of ongoing repatriation efforts, the Rohingyas remaining in Bangladesh appear to
have limited prospects of voluntary repatriation or local integration. The remaining East Timorese
refugees in Indonesia (30-40,000) are in the process of returning to East Timor.

During 2001, 1,100 Montagnard refugees fled from Vietnam to Cambodia, fearing reprisals
by the Vietnamese Government over their involvement in demonstrations in the Central Highlands
over land-use and religious freedom issues in early-February 2001. In early 2002, some 150 of
these asylum seekers voluntarily returned to Vietnam. The remaining 950 were processed for u.s.
resettlement and began to arrive in the u.s. in June.

1. Religious Freedom in East Asia

Most countries in the East Asia region permit freedom of worship. However, religious
freedom in North Korea is not allowed and all organized religious activity except that which serves
the interests of the state is suppressed.

The situation in some countries such as China, Vietnam and Laos, is mixed. The Chinese
and Vietnamese constitutions provide for freedom of worship; however, both governments restrict (
activities of religious organizations that they define as being at variance with state laws and
policies. Most independent religious activities are either prohibited or severely restricted. Despite
dramatic increases in religious observance in China, the government continues to suppress those
religions it cannot directly control, most notably the Vatican affiliated (underground) Catholic
Church, Protestant "house churches," some Muslim groups, as well as the Falun Gong spiritual
movement. There are many cases of arrest, imprisonment, and mistreatment of religious believers
in China. The situation for some religious groups in Laos is similar to that in Vietnam. In Burma,
the government represses most non-Buddhist religions, though there are recent indications that the
regime is taking steps to be more tolerant of other religions.

The U.S. admissions program processes refugee cases referred by UNHCR and U.S.
Embassies whose claims are based on persecution due to religious beliefs. We have worked closely
with UNHCR to strengthen this referral process.

2. Voluntary Repatriation in East Asia

Although 6,000 of the 22,000 Burmese Rohingyas remaining in Bangladesh have been
cleared for return by the Burmese authorities, the pace of repatriations has been very slow. Recent
negotiations by Bangladesh, Burma and UNHCR may result in an increased rate of returns for this
group in FY 2003. Currently, there are approximately 30-40,000 East Timorese remaining in West

16
Timor from the estimated 250,000 who fled or were forced there in 1999. The number returning to
East Timor has greatly increased in the last few months. UNHCR anticipates continued high rates of
return.

3. Resettlement or Local Integration within East Asia

The willingness of countries in the region to resettle refugees or even to grant temporary
asylum has historically been and continues to be constrained, although many countries have hosted
refugees for decades. The Thai government officially labels Burmese asylum seekers "displaced
persons" who are now officially permitted to enter Thailand only if they are fleeing actual fighting.

4. Third-country Resettlement outside the Region

The U.S. and other resettlement countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and
the Nordic countries, continue to process refugee cases from East Asia referred by UNHCR. In
2002, the U.S. processed UNHCR-referred refugee cases in Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia and
Malaysia.

In addition to admissions from first asylum countries, as described above, the U.S.
administers an in-country refugee admissions program in Vietnam. With the closure in 1999 of the
Orderly Departure Program (ODP) office in Bangkok, Thailand, the Vietnamese in-country
program has been managed by the Refugee Resettlement Section (RRS) at the U.S. Consulate
General in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMe), Vietnam. Only a small number of residual ODP refugee
applicants remain to be processed.

The Vietnamese Amerasian immigrant program remains an integral part of the U.S.
Government's East Asian refugee admissions program. Although the "Amerasian Homecoming
Act of 1987" designated Amerasians as a special class of immigrant, they are by law accorded
refugee benefits and are therefore included in the refugee admissions ceiling.

In 1997, the U.S. and Vietnam agreed on a process and a set of procedures for implementing
the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees program (ROVR) for persons returning
from first asylum camps in the region, which all closed officially that year. Fewer than 30 ROVR
applicants remain to be interviewed.

5. FY 2002 Admissions from East Asia

The U.S. admitted 3,512 refugees from East Asia in FY 2002. In addition to the processing
of residual-ODP and ROVR cases, the RRS had responsibility for processing some residual cases of
former U.S. government employees (U1I). (Eligibility for this program was limited to those
Vietnamese who were direct-hire employees of the U.S. government for a minimum of five years
prior to 1975.) The resumption of processing of the Ull caseload, which was suspended in 1996,
was authorized in 1999. In 2000, the physical files of all 2,282 applicants in this caseload were
reviewed by officers of the Department of State and INS and 946 applicants were determined

17
eligible for refugee interviews. INS interviewed these cases in April and May 2002. The majority
of the applicants approved for U.S. resettlement and their accompanying family members arrived in (
the U.S. before the end of calendar year 2002.

As we complete the processing of ODP and ROVR cases, we have restructured the refugee
program in Vietnam with the goal of providing refugee resettlement opportunities to those
individuals who have recently experienced persecution or threats of persecution. Amerasian cases
continue to be processed at the American Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City.

The FY 2002 admissions program also included a group of 950 Montagnard refugees who
fled from Vietnam to Cambodia during 2001. Given the precarious situation faced by this group in
Cambodia, the U.S. conducted expedited processing during May and June ofFY 2002, and the
majority of the group arrived in the U.S. during the summer of 2002.

The U.S. participates in a UNHCR-Ied, multinational effort to resettle a discreet group of

Burmese students and dissidents in Thailand. A few residual cases from this group arrived in the
U.S. during FY 2002 and we anticipate that the processing of these refugees will be completed in
early FY 2003.

6. FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in East Asia

, We have set an admissions ceiling of 4,000 for East Asia for FY 2003. With the completion
of the processing of the Burmese student dissident population currently in Thailand, direct
resettlement of Burmese from rust-asylum countries is not expected to exceed 400. We project /I,
3,600 admissions under the in-country program in Vietnam, including UlI, ROVR, and Amerasian
applicants, and remaining re-education camp detainees and eligible family members (McCain
Amendment cases).
All East Asian nationalities will continue to be eligible for Priority One (P-l) processing
when referred to the U.S. program by UNHCR or a U.S. Embassy. Completion of processing of the
residual ODP and ROVR cases in Vietnam will continue to be processed under Priority Two (P-2).

Proposed FY 2003 East Asia Program:

First Asylum P-l Referrals 400

P-2 In-Country Program. Vietnam 3.600

Total Proposed Ceiling 4.000

/
\
18
 7. Possible Future GroupslPrograms
In East Asia, as part of the U.S. initiative to identify refugee populations in need of
resettlement, the U.S. is looking at the situation of the Burmese Rohingyas in Bangladesh, the
mostly Karen Burmese ethnic minorities in camps along the Thai/Burma border, and the Bhutanese
in Nepal. The majority of these refugees fled their countries of origin a decade or more ago.

19
c. EUROPE /
(
The U.S. administers refugee admissions from Europe as two distinct resettlement programs:
one for refugees from the Former Soviet Union and the Baltic states and one for refugees from
Eastern Europe. The programs are discussed separately below.

1. FORMER SOVIET UNION and BALTIC STATES (FSU)

The nations that once comprised the Soviet Union and the Baltic States now show a wide
divergence of progress in achieving democracy, rule of law, economic growth, and tolerance.
Volatile economic conditions and old-think policies continue to plague government reform efforts
in many former Soviet states. While political freedom is exercised across most of these republics to
a much greater extent than during the Soviet era, respect for press, human rights, and religious
freedom remains problematic in most of these countries, with recurrent instances of official
restrictions of these rights. Elections in some FSU states continue to be manipulated by the parties
in power with the press and media restricted or threatened. Politically motivated murders have
occurred in some countries. Seemingly-racially motivated attacks against dark-skinned foreigners,
immigrants and refugees have occurred in many Russian cities, including Moscow. The security
situation in Russia's North Caucasus region remains very dangerous because of the ongoing conflict
in Chechnya. Tens of thousands ofChechens are internally displaced in or near Chechnya,

a) Religious Freedom in the FSU

Freedom of religion has varied widely in the former republics following the breakup of the (
Soviet Union. Most states regulate religious groups and activities to some degree, for example
establishing so-called ''traditional'' religions that enjoy privileges sometimes denied to other newer
religious groups. Following the example of Russia in 1997, many states enacted restrictive
legislation to govern the activities of foreign missionaries, especially those from Protestant or
nontraditional denominations. Registration with state bodies in many cases is required, not only to
establish a group as a legal entity that can rent or own space, but in some cases a group's right to
hold religious services. Harassment (typically by local officials) of local clergy and confiscation of
church and private property of adherents have been reported in a number of countries throughout
the region. In most countries, obstruction or delay of registration, usually imposed arbitrarily by
local officials, continues to frustrate some denominations. Some local authorities are reportedly
suspicious of religious groups they see as having political agendas. While most evangelical
churches have been registered and permitted to practice freely, some still have problems with
recalcitrant local authorities who object to "foreign" groups and foreign missionaries, and who
subject evangelical churches to arbitrary regulations and even confiscation of private property.
Some countries deny visas or visa-renewals to foreign religious workers with increasing frequency.
Anti-Semitic statements by some elected officials, demonstrations by extremist groups, and attacks
on synagogues and other places where religious groups gather have been reported. In 2002, at least
seven anti-Semitic messages on boxes or placards were found across Russia, some of which were
booby-trapped and exploded, killing and injuring several people. Despite energetic condemnation
by President Putin, police investigation of these incidents, described as mere "hooliganism," has
been lax.

20
 b) Third-country Resettlement outside the Region

In addition to the U.S., Germany, Canada, and Australia continue to resettle immigrants and
refugees from the countries of the FSU. Jewish emigration to Israel continues from the region, with
some 44,000 individuals availing themselves of this opportunity in 2001.

U.S. refugee admissions processing for the FSU is based in Moscow but includes circuit
rides to other capitals to process UNHCR (P-I) referrals and individuals with Lautenberg
Amendment (PL 106-113) eligibility who have family ties to the U.S. The Lautenberg Amendment
reduces the evidentiary burden on Lautenberg Category applicants (Jews, Evangelical Christians
and certain members of the Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox Churches) who seek to establish
refugee claims from "an independent state of the former Soviet Union or of Estonia, Latvia, or
Lithuania". Most refugees resettled from the FSU have family ties to the U.S. The large backlogs
of the early 1990s have been eliminated and most eligible cases are scheduled for appointment
within several months of the date of application. The OPE in Moscow receives an average of 500
new applications from eligible individuals per month.

In FY 2000, the program initiated circuit rides to the Caucasus and central Asia to consider
cases of applicants for whom travel to Moscow was difficult, as well as referrals from UNHCR for
nationals of other countries. Circuit rides continued in FY 2002, although the events of September
11 caused the cancellations of several proposed trips. In the end, INS was able to travel to
Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Uzbekistan and Georgia, interviewing 70 UNHCR and 200
Lautenberg cases.

c) FY 2002 Admissions from the FSU

In FY 2002, the U.S. admitted 9990 refugees from the FSU. The lower than expected
number of arrivals was caused in large part by the loss of INS interview space at Embassy Moscow
for four months because of post-September II security concerns. INS resumed interviewing on a
limited basis in February 2002, but did not recover its full interviewing capacity until July 2002.

On July 1, 2002, the U.S. introduced a new P-2 classification in Russia for Baku Armenians.
This group of ethnic Armenians was evacuated from Azerbaijan between 1988 and 1992 but was
never offered a durable solution in Russia. We expect a total of some 2,300 to be approved for
admission and arrive in the U.S. during FY 2003. The registration period for members of this group
will end on October 31, 2002.

d) FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in FSU

The FY 2003 ceiling for refugees from the FSU is 14,000. We expect some 200
P-l referrals from UNHCR, including referrals from around the region and a fairly large group of
urban African long-stayers who cannot return home due to a fear of persecution, have been harassed
in Russia because of their race and, therefore, have no hope of local integration. (Note: The African
long-stayers will be counted against the Afrlca ceiling.) Under the P-2 in-country program, we will
continue to process Lautenberg-eligible cases, of which we expect 11,500 arrivals. In addition,
some 2,300 Baku Armenians are being processed as a P-2 group.

21
 I .
Proposed FY-2003 FSU program: (

P-1 Referrals/rom UNHCR 200

In-Country Lautenberg Program 11,500
Baku Armenian P-2 2.300

Total Proposed Ceiling: 14,000

e) Possible Future GroupslPrograms

The Department of State is reviewing the possible resettlement needs of some 13,000
Meskhetian Turks who continue to struggle for full residency rights in Krasnodar province in the
Russian Republic, and, if appropriate, plans to actively pursue a P-2 designation for this group
during FY 2003.

2. SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE

Although diminishing in number, nationals of the countries of the former Yugoslavia,

particularly Bosnia, continue to comprise a population of asylum-seekers in Europe outside the
FSU. While both the human rights situation and repatriation opportunities continue to improve in
Bosnia, neither is ideal-particularly for returning minorities.

a) Religious Persecution in Southeastern Europe

Religion and ethnicity go hand in hand in the Balkans and persecution on religious/ethnic
grounds has been a significant factor in both the Bosnia and Kosovo resettlement efforts. The
refugee admissions program has provided access to protection for persecuted Muslims, Catholics,
and Orthodox Christians, as well as individuals of other religious minorities and mixed marriages.
We will continue to work with UNHCR, non-governmental organizations, human rights groups, and
u.S. missions to identify victims of religious persecution for whom resettlement is appropriate.

b) Voluntary Repatriation to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia

According to UNHCR, over 392,000 refugees had returned to Bosnia by March 31, 2002. In
addition, over 452,000 internally displaced persons have returned to their homes since the end of the
war. The rate of ethnic minority returns has been steadily increasing since 1998, with a peak of
92,000 in 2001. In 2002 returns exceeded this level, but we expect returns to taper off in coming
years as the number of remaining displaced persons decreases. The lack of economic opportunities,
particularly in poorer areas of the Serb-dominated entity of Bosnia, discourages returns, as do
security conditions in some Serb-dominated areas of Bosnia.

22
 The international community is supporting efforts to create favorable conditions for the
return of minorities to Kosovo while at the same time supporting ongoing emergency assistance and
protection to Macedonian refugees in the province. The international community also is assisting
the Macedonian government in facilitating refugee and internally-displaced person returns to their
homes in Macedonia.

c) Resettlement or Local Integration in Europe

Substantial populations of Bosnian refugees remain in Germany and other parts of Europe.
Some European countries, particularly Norway, Sweden and Denmark, have regularized the status
of Bosnians within their borders under temporary protective status regimes. In November 2000,
Germany granted temporary residence permits to some 15,000 Bosnian refugees considered
traumatized or with family members too traumatized to return to Bosnia. It has not, however,
granted permanent status to these refugees, who are expected to return to Bosnia upon the
completion of their respective medical treatments.

There are some 10,000 Bosnian refugees remaining in Croatia and an estimated 30,000
Croatian Serbs in Republika Srpska without permanent status. An estimated 250,000 ethnic Serbs
who fled from the Krajina region of Croatia now live in Serbia. Many of these refugees had been
temporarily resettled in Kosovo and were uprooted once again during the Kosovo conflict in 1999.
Political changes in the last two years have improved the possibilities for return to Croatia for
Krajina Serbs, though poor economic prospects and some continuing opposition at the local level
limit returns. At the same time, changes in Serbia's nationality law, which now allows dual
citizenship, may encourage local integration in Serbia. There are also approximately 140,000
Bosnian Serb refugees residing in Serbia and Montenegro (the vast majority in Serbia). Several
thousand returned to Bosnia in the past two years and the rate of return will likely increase in the
near future. However, it is expected that the majority will ultimately resettle in Serbia and
Montenegro.

d) Third-Country Resettlement outside the Region

In 2002, Australia, Canada and the U.S. resettled refugees from the former Yugoslavia. The
U.S. admissions program continues to receive P-l UNHCR or Embassy referrals for refugees from
the Balkans but discontinued accepting new applications for family reunification programs in
FY 2001.

e) FY 2002 Admissions from Southeastern Europe

In FY 2002,5480 refugees from the former Yugoslavia were admitted to the U.S. Almost
all were processed in Zagreb and Belgrade, as processing in Frankfurt was largely completed in
FY 2001. Family reunification programs for Bosnian refugees were phased out during FY 2001,
but many cases registered before the cut off dates were processed and arrived in the U.S. during
FY2002.

23
 f) FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in Southeastern Europe

The proposed admissions ceiling for refugees from Southeastern Europe in FY 2003 is
2,500. The refugee population requiring resettlement in FY 2003 has decreased considerably due to
-the changing politica1landscape in the Balkans. UNHCR and Embassy P-I referrals will be the sole
:processing priority for refugees from the region in FY 2003, and is likely to include Serbs, Kosovar
Albanians, and Roma,

Proposed FY 2003 program for Southeastern Europe:

P-l Referrals from UNHCR 500

2.000
Other refugees
Total Proposed Ceiling: 2.500

24
])e LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
UNHCR reports that, in the first four months of2002, some 37,000 Colombians had fled to
Ecuador and that 719 Colombians were accorded refugee status during the first five months of 2002
by the Government of Ecuador. Additional numbers are now moving to Panama, Venezuela, and
Costa Rica. Over 5,000 Colombians have applied for asylum in Costa Rica, causing that
government to impose a visa requirement on Colombians.

In response to the dangers faced by police, lawyers, judges and others in Colombia, the U. S.
began a small P-l resettlement program in 2002 to resettle Colombians referred by the U.S.
Embassy in Bogota. This program was initially expected to yield only small numbers; however as
the conflict continues in Colombia we are making provisions to expand the program. In coming
months, the U.S. is likely to begin processing Colombians referred by UNHCR in Ecuador and
elsewhere.

Under the U.S.- Cuba Bilateral Migration Agreement of 1994, the U.S. is committed to
approving 20,000 Cubans for lawful migration to the United States each year. The refugee
admissions component of that overall number is managed under the in-country Priority 2 program
.described above. In recent years, Cuban admissions have averaged some 2,500 per year.

While the vast majority of migrants fleeing Haiti seek economic opportunity, the situation
continues to be unstable and could lead to migrant outflows.

1. Religious Freedom in Latin America and the Caribbean

In Latin America, religious freedom is widely recognized and enjoyed. The key exception is
Cuba, where the government engages in active efforts to monitor and control religious institutions,
including surveillance, infiltration, harassment of clergy and members, evictions from and
confiscation of places of worship, and preventive detention of religious activists. The Cuban
government also uses registration as a mechanism of control; by refusing to register new
denominations, it makes them vulnerable to charges of illegal association. U.S. resettlement
program allows Cubans persecuted for religious activities priority access to the program.

2. Resettlement or Local Integration within Latin America and the Caribbean

In the recent past, Latin America has not produced large numbers of resettlement cases and
local integration has been the most suitable solution to regional refugee problems. However, as the
conflict in Colombia worsens and more refugees flee to neighboring countries, resettlement is
becoming an important durable solution for those who face physical risks and urgent protection
needs.

The Governments of Ecuador and Costa Rica have tried to maintain a liberal asylum policy
and allow Colombians in need of protection to file asylum applications and integrate. As more
refugees have fled to these countries, however, living conditions in Ecuador and Costa Rica for
Colombian refugees have deteriorated as refugees wait longer and longer for status determinations

25
and find themselves unable to gain legal status and the right to work. For refugees in Venezuela,
Panama and Peru, the situation is worse as those governments are reluctant to receive Colombian (
refugees and lack any effective means to grant refugee status. Many Colombians in need of
protection who cross irregularly into these countries must hide in remote border areas or in
shantytowns of larger cities.

3. Third-country Resettlement outside the Region

In FY 2002, Cubans comprised the overwhelming majority of refugees resettled in the U.S.
from Latin America. Historically, Cuban admissions have been former political prisoners and
forced labor conscripts, most of whom served sentences in the 1960's and 1970's. The program was
expanded in 1991 to include human rights activists, displaced professionals and others facing
credible claims of persecution. The expanded criteria remain in effect today.

Cubans eligible to apply for admission to the U.S. through the P-2 in-country program
include the following:

(1) Former political prisoners;

(2) Members of persecuted religious minorities;
(3) Human rights activists;
(4) Forced labor conscripts (1965-68);
(5) Persons deprived of their professional credentials or subjected to other
disproportionately harsh or discriminatory treatments resulting from their perceived
or actual political or religious beliefs;
(6) Others who appear to have a credible claim that they will face persecution as defined
in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

The U.S. began a small P-l program in FY 2002 to address at-risk Colombian refugees for
whom resettlement is the only appropriate durable solution. PRM hopes to expand this program in
FY 2003 by providing assistance with resettlement processing to Embassy Bogota and increasing
UNHCR's capacity to provide protection and resettlement referrals for more Colombian refugees.

The U.S. also facilitates the resettlement of Cuban and Haitian migrants who are interdicted
by the Coast Guard or who enter Guantanamo Naval Base illegally and are found by INS to have
protection concerns to other countries in the region and, occasionally, to Europe and Australia.
Through the end of May 2002, 152 Cubans were resettled from Guantanamo to eleven different
countries.

4. FY 2002 Admissions from Latin America and the Caribbean

In FY 2002, we admitted 1929 refugees from the region, the vast maj ority Cuban. In
addition to refugee admissions, many thousands of Cubans will come to the United States through
other legal avenues, such as the parole lottery program. In general, oppression by the Cuban
government is now subtler than during the period immediately following the revolution; however,
crackdowns against human rights activists continue to occur.

26
 5. FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in Latin America and the Caribbean

The 2,500 ceiling for Latin America for FY 2003 will comprise both Cuban refugees eligible
for the in-country P-2 program and the growing need to provide durable solutions for Colombian
refugees. PRM is working with UNHCR in Ecuador and Venezuela to increase P-l resettlement
referrals of Colombians. We will continue to explore other possible P-2 groups, which could
include vulnerable women from the Ibarra area refugee population in Ecuador. We are also seeking
ways to assist with processing of Embassy Bogota referrals.

Proposed FY 2003 program for Latin America:

500
P-l Referrals of Colombians
2.000
P-2 Cuba In-Country program

2.500
Total Proposed Ceiling

27
:I. NEAR EAST AND SOUTH ASIA
(
The Near East/South Asia region is host to the majority of the world's refugee population
comprising some 7 million people, primarily Afghans, Palestinians and Iraqis. Few countries in the
region are signatories to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and/or its 1967
Protocol. Nonetheless, host governments generally continue to tolerate the presence of refugees.
1JNHCR, the International Committee for the Red Cross (JCRC), the United Nations Relief and
Works Agency (UNRWA), and other humanitarian organizations work with refugees in the region.
Some countries have provided long-term protection, mainly to Palestinians, Afghans and some
African nationals. Despite the voluntary return of over one million Afghan refugees from countries
of asylum this year, the Government of Pakistan has acknowledged that it may need to continue to
h.ost some of the Afghan refugee population for two to three more years, until conditions in
Afghanistan are stable enough to permit a safe return for all. Other countries in the region have
provided long-term asylum for Tibetan, Bhutanese, Sri Lankan and Iraqi refugees. The majority of
the refugees identified for third-country resettlement by UNHCR are Iraqis, Iranians and Afghans in
Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, India, and Lebanon.

1. Religious Persecution in the Near East and South Asia

Persecution of religious minorities is common in certain countries in the Middle East and
South Asia. In Pakistan, discriminatory legislation has led to acts of violence by extremists against
religious minorities, including Shi'as, Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis and Zikris. In 2002, terrorist
violence was directed against Islamabad's International Protestant Church, killing two Americans.
In India, responses by state and local authorities to extremist violence against religious minorities
were often inadequate. In Saudi Arabia, public non-Muslim worship is a criminal offense. In Iraq
there are reports of persecution of Chaldean and Assyrian Christians, Mandaeans and Yazidis. In
several countries in the region, the conversion of a Muslim to another religion is viewed as a
criminal act. In Iran, particularly severe persecution of minority religions, including executions of
Mandaeans and of Baha'is, continues.

2. Voluntary Repatriation in the Near East and South Asia

Since the fall of the Taliban, voluntary repatriation to Afghanistan has proceeded on a
massive scale, with and without UNHCR assistance. By mid-summer 2002, some 1.7 million
Afghan refugees had repatriated with projections of some two million by the end of the year.
Sporadic interfactional fighting and continued drought have led to a continued small outflow of
refugees, primarily into Pakistan. The sheer magnitude of repatriation has taxed the ability of the
UN and other humanitarian organizations to conduct and/or monitor repatriation of Afghan
refugees.

3. Resettlement or Local Integration within the Near East and South Asia

Few countries in the region offer permanent resettlement to refugees. In the past, Pakistan
has granted prima facie refugee status to all Afghans. Since 1999, however, new arrivals have been
screened prior to being permitted entry.
 India does not have a clear national policy for the treatment of refugees and the UNHCR has
no formal status there. India recognizes and aids certain groups as refugees, including Tamils and
Tibetans in 131 camps throughout the country. It permits UNHCR to assist other groups-
primarily Afghans, Iranians, Somalis, Burmese, and Sudanese. In 2000, there were about 98,000
Tibetans and 65,000 Sri LankanTamils in India, all of whom were permitted to work and receive
social benefits. While India refouled several dozen Afghans in 1999, no recent cases have been
reported.

4. Third-Country Resettlement outside the Region

The absence of legal protection for asylum-seekers in the region leaves many refugees at
risk of refoulement. The situation is especially precarious for Iranians and Iraqis, who are often
viewed with suspicion or hostility in neighboring countries.

In 2002, UNHCR continued its attempts to reduce the backlog of refugees awaiting status
determinations in the Middle East. Many of the refugees were identified as in need of third-country
resettlement. Principal resettlement countries operating in the region include the U.S., Sweden,
Canada, Norway, Australia, Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand. UNHCR considers family
reunification, protection issues and vulnerability in first asylum when determining which
individuals to refer to resettlement countries. The U.S. has provided additional funding to expand
UNHCR's referral capacity and expects to increase this funding in FY 2003.

The U.S. primarily resettles refugees from Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan from this region. The
Iranians and Iraqis are widely dispersed, with relatively few resident in refugee camps. Most
resettlement to the U.S. in the region is initiated by UNHCR referral.

Middle Eastern and South Asian refugees in Europe avail themselves of the asylum systems
of the countries in which they are located. In Vienna, however, certain Iranian religious minorities
(Baha'is, Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians) may be processed for U.S. resettlement using special
procedures authorized by the government of Austria. (Mandaeans, who are categorized as
Christians by the Iranian government, yet who consider themselves a distinct religion, are generally
not treated as a separate religious group in the consideration of asylum and refugee cases.) PRM:
maintains refugee processing facilities in Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Pakistan. In addition,
INS conducts circuit rides to other locations in the region on an as-needed basis.

5. FY 2002 Admissions from the Near East and South Asia

The events of September 11 significantly reduced arrivals from this region in FY 2002.
New security requirements placed on refugee processing delayed travel for thousands of approved
individuals. Embassy drawdowns and other security concerns for U.S. government personnel
overseas interrupted processing in some locations. Finally, repatriation possibilities for Afghans
overtook plans to expand processing in Pakistan this year.

29
 As a result, we only admitted 3697 refugees from the region in FY 2002. This total included
approximately 600 Iranians processed in Vienna and 1,300 refugees from Pakistan, primarily (
Afghan Women at Risk. The remainder came from a variety of locations in the region as well as a
s!l1llll number from the FSU. Processing in New Delhi was discontinued in May 2002 due to
Embassy personnel drawdowns following escalating Indo-Pakistani tensions.

6. FY 2003 Resettlement Priorities in the Near East and South Asia

The regional ceiling for refugees from the Near East and South Asia for FY 2003 is 7,000.
1t includes Iranians, Afghans and Iraqis approved by INS in FY 2002 who will not travel to the U.S.
by the end of this fiscal year, P-l UNHCR referrals from throughout the region and members of
Iranian religious minorities eligible under P-2 guidelines.

Proposed FY-2003 Near East/South Asia program:

5,000
r-t Referralsfrom UNHCR
2.000
P-2 Iranian Religious Minorities
7.000
Total Proposed FY-03 Ceiling

7. Possible Future GroupslPrograms

PRM is reviewing designating Yazidis, Aramaic-speaking Iraqis (Assyrians, Chaldeans and
Mandaeans) and other Iraqi ethnic minorities as potential P-2 groups for the future. We expect that
resettlement program funding provided to UNHCR specifically for use in the region will result in an
increase in P-l referrals in the region, particularly of Iraqi long-stayers. Depending on the security
environment in FY 2003, we hope to resume refugee processing in locations throughout the region.
With continued repatriation of Afghans from Iran and Pakistan, we foresee resettlement limited to
small numbers of particularly vulnerable Afghans.

(
30
F. UNALLOCATED RESERVE
Included in the FY 2003 admissions program are 20,000 funded but unallocated admissions
that could be used if we are able to identify and process additional refugee case10ads during FY
2003. Given our ongoing efforts to develop new caseloads, this unallocated reserve will provide the
flexibility to accommodate additional numbers in any geographic region. Some populations we are
now exploring which could lead to the need for unallocated reserve numbers include the Congolese
in Angola, the Kuname Eritreans in Ethiopia, the Meskhetian Turks in Russia, and Colombians in
Ecuador.

31
IV. Domestic Impact of Refugee Admissions
The demographic characteristics of arrivals from the 15 largest source countries (which
contributed over 98% ofFY 2001 arrivals into the U.S.) illustrate the variation among refugee
groups. Median age ranged from 17 years for arrivals from Liberia to 30 years for arrivals from
Cuba. The median age for all refugees resettled in FY 2001 was 23 years.

TABLE II
MEDIAN AGE AND SEX FOR REFUGEE ARIuv ALS FY 2001

I COUNTRY OF ORIGIN RANK (#OF MEDIAN 010 FEMALEI

ARRIVALS) AGE 010MALE

Former Yugoslavia 1 25.0 49.1/50.9

Former Soviet Union 2 30.0 51.2/48.8

Iran 3 28.0 45.6/54.4

Sudan 4 20.0 20.5/79.4

Somalia 5 19.0 47.2/52.8

Liberia 6 17.0 53.6/46.4

Vietnam 7 29.0 49.3 /50.7

Afghanistan 8 16.5 57.5 /42.5

Cuba 9 33.0 47.3 /52.7

Iraq 10 25.0 45.5/54.4

Sierra Leone 11 20.0 5'4.1 /45.9

Ethiopia 12 20.0 42.7/57.3

Burma 13 26.0 43.6/56.4

Togo 14 22.0 48.9/51.1

Dem. Rep. Congo 15 16.0 52.3 /47.7

I All other Countries I -- I 20.0 I 47.5 /52.5 I

(

32
 Considerable variation among refugee groups can be seen among specific age categories.
Arrivals under the age of five varied from a high of 19% for the Burmese to a low of 3% for the
Togolese. Arrivals of school-age children (five to 17 years of age) varied from a high of 46%for
Afghans to a low of 13% for Vietnamese. Arrivals of working-age (16 to 64 years of age) varied
from 80% for Sudanese to a low of 50% for the Democratic Republic of Congo. Arrivals of
retirement-age (65 years or older) varied from a high of 10% for arrivals from the fanner Soviet
Union to a low of none from the Democratic Republic of Congo. For all arrivals, 9% were under
the age of five, 29% were of school-age, 66% were of working age, and 2% were of retirement-age.

TABLE III
SELECT AGE CATEGORIES FOR REFUGEE ARIuv ALS FY 2001 *

WORKING RETIREMENT
COUNTRY UNDER SCHOOL AGE
AGE AGE
OF ORIGIN 5 YEARS (5-17)
{16-64) (= OR> 65)

Fonner Yugoslavia 9.0 25.4 67.9 1.7

Fonner Soviet Union 8.5 26.7 58.2 10.6

Iran 5.3 21.6 74.5 2.9

Sudan 6.7 21.7 80.8 0.2
Somalia 6.1 35.2 64.2 4.0

Liberia 9.2 40.9 56.1 1.8

Vietnam 12.9 13.6 74.7 1.3

Afghanistan 7.0 46.6 51.3 2.3

Cuba 6.2 17.4 72.5 6.5

Iraq 9.4 28.5 63.8 2.1

Sierra Leone 5.2 33.7 64.6 4.5

Ethiopia 4.2 27.7 79.1 0.6

Burma 19.5 14.5 66.7 0.9

Togo 3.6 32.2 68.8 0.4

Dem. Rep. Congo 13.3 42.2 50.8 0.0

I All Other Countries I 11.8 I 33.7 I 59.0 I 0.2 I

*Totals may exceed 100% due to over-lapping age categories.

33
 During FY 2001, 75% of newly arrived refugees resettled in 15 States. California (15%)
resettled the largest number of refugees, followed by New York (10%), Washington (6%), Florida, (.
Minnesota, and Texas (5%), Georgia, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (4%), and Arizona, Massachusetts,
Missouri, and Virginia (3 %), followed by Oregon (2%). Table IV presents arrivals by state of
initial resettlement for FY 2001.
TABLE IV
REFUGEE ARRIVALS BY STATE OF INITIAL RESETTLEMENT, FY 2001

AMERASIAN REFUGEE TOTAL

STATE Number % Number 0/0 Number 0/0
iAIabama 2 0.53% III 0.16% 113 0.17%
lAlaska () 0.00lY< 55 0.081Y< 55 0.08%
lArizona 8 2.12% 2,292 3.37% 2,300 3.36%
~rkansas () 0.00lY< 14 0.02% 14 0.02%
California 44 11.64% 10,051 14.781Y< 10,095 14.76%
~olorado 9 2.381Y< 1,015 1.491Y< 1,024 1.50%
Connecticut () 0.00lY< 975 1.431Y< 975 1.43%
IDelaware () 0.00% 59 0.09% 59 0.09%
IDistrict of Columbia 0 0.00% 112 0.16% 112 0.16%
tFIorid a 10 2.65% 3,661 5.38% 3,671 5.37%
Geonda 15 3.97% 2,462 3.62% 2,477 3.62%
Hawaii 1 0.26% 18 0.03% 19 0.03%
Tdaho 0 O.OOo/c 675 0.99% 675 0.99%
Dlinois 20 5.29% 2,652 3.90% 2,672 3.91~
Indiana 4 1.06% 522 0.77% 526 0.77%
Iowa 30 7.94% 1,024 1.51% 1,054 1.54%
Kansas 3 0.79% 155 0.23% 158 0~23%
Kentucky () 0.00% 1,013 1.49% 1,013 1.48%
Louisiana 25 6.61O/C 340 0.50% 365 0.53%
Maine 0 0.00% 224 0.33% 224 0.33%
!Maryland 3 0.79% 1,339 1.971Y< 1,342 1.96%
~assachusetts 6 1.59% 1,891 2.78% 1,897 2.77%
~~hi~an 21 5.56% 2,333 3.43% 2,354 3.44%
Minnesota 3 0.79% 3,221 4.74% 3,224 4.71%
Mississippi 0 0.00% 104 0.15% 104 0.15%
!Missouri ,9 2.38o/c 2,252 3.31% 2,261 3.31%
~_ontana 0 0.00% 8 0.01% 8 0.01%
Nebraska 6 1.59% 654 0.96% 660 0.97%
Nevada 0 0.00% 357 0.52% 357 0.52%
New Hampshire 0 0.00% 538 0.79% 538 0.79%
~ewJersey 6 1.59% 1,346 1.98% 1,352 1.98%
~ewMexico 8 2.12% 186 0.27% 194 0.28%
~ewYork 13 3.44% 6,577 9.67% 6,590 9.64'Yc
~orth Carolina 37 9.79% 1,017 1.50% 1,054 1.54%
~orth Dakota 0 0.00% 367 0.54% 367 0.54%
Ohio 1 0.26CY< 1,363 2.00% 1,364 1.99~

34
 AMERASIAN REFUGEE TOTAL
STATE Number % Number % Number 0/0

Oklahoma 0 0.00% 126 0.19% 126 0.18%

Oregon 4 1.06% 1,393 2.05% 1,397 2.040/(
Pennsylvania 4 1.06% 2,578 3.79% 2,582 3.78%
Puerto Rico 0 0.000/( 3 0.00% 3 0.00%
Rhode Island 0 0.000/( 310 0.46% 310 0.450/0
South Carolina 0 0.00% . 83 0.12% 83 0.12%
South Dakota 0 0.00% 301 0.44% 301 0.44%
~ennessee 9 2.38% 911 1.34% 920 1.35%
[I'exas 48 12.70% 3,477 5.11% 3,525 5.15%
Utah 0 0.00% 925 1.36% 925 1.35%
Vermont 8 2.12% 253 0.37% 261 0.38%
Virginia 17 4.50% 1,781 2.62% 1,798 2.63%
:Washington 0 0.00% 4,300 6.32% 4,300 6.29%
~ est Virginia 4 1.06% 7 0.01% 11 0.02%
Wisconsin 0 O.OOo/c 578 0.85% 578 0.85%
irable Total 378 100.0o/c 68,009 100.0% 68,387 100.00/(
NOTE: Arrival figures do not reflect secondary migration.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement

35
 In FY 2001, the 13 largest source countries contributed over 98% of arrivals into the U.S.
They included the former Yugoslavia (23%), the former USSR (22%), Iran (10%), Sudan (9%),
Somalia (7%), Liberia and Vietnam (5%), Afghanistan, Cuba, and Iraq (4%), Sierra Leone (3%),
Ethiopia (2%), followed by Burma (1%). Table V presents arrivals by country of origin for FY
2001.
TABLE V
REFUGEE ARRIVALS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, FY 2001

AMERASIAN REFUGEE TOTAL

~OUNTRY OF ORIGIN Number % Number 0/0 Number 0/0

~GHANISTAN 2954 4.34% 2954 4.32%
~LBANIA 3 0.00% 3 0.00%
~LGERIA 31 0.05% 31 0.05%
~GOLA 34 0.05o/c 34 0.05%
ARGENTINA 5 0.01% 5 0.01%
BAHRAIN 3 O.OOo/c 3 0.00%
BURMA 543 0.80% 543 0.79o/c
[BURUNDI 109 0.16% 109 0.16%
c:AMBODIA 23 0.03o/c 23 0.03%
CAMEROON 5 O.Olo/c 5 0.01%
GENT AFRICA REPUBLIC 1 0.00% 1 0.00%
~HAD 2 0.00% 2 O.OOo/c
CHINA 10 O.Olo/c 10 0.01% (
6 0.01% 6 0.01%
\
CONGO (Brazzaville)
CONGO (DROC) 256 0.38o/c 256 0.37%
~UBA 2942 4.33o/c 2942 4.30%
DJIBOUTI 12 0.02% 12 0.02%
EGYPT 8 O.Olo/c 8 0.01%
ERITREA 109 0.16% 109 0.16%
ETIDOPIA 1432 2.l1O/C 1432 2.09%
tFORMER SOVIET UNION 14869 21.86% 14869 21.74O/C
rrHEGAMBIA 5 0.01% 5 0.01%
GHANA 1 O.OOo/c 1 0.00%
GUINEA 4 0.01% 4 0.01%
HAITI 23 0.03% 23 0.03%
INDONESIA 5 0.01% 5 o.ors,
IRAN 6581 9.68% 6581 9.62%
IRAQ 2473 3.64% 2473 3.62%
II\'ORY COAST 1 0.00% 1 0.00%
~NYA 13 0.02% 13 0.02%
tLAOS 22 0.03% 22 0.03%
tLEBANON 1 0.00% 1 0.00%
tLmERIA 3414 5.02% 3414 4.99%
~mYA 5 0.01% 5 0.01%
MALAYSIA 5. 0.01% 5 0.01%
~ALDIVES 2 O.OOo/c 2 0.00%
(
36
 AMERASIAN REFUGEE TOTAL

~OUNTRY OF ORIGIN Number % Number % Number 0/0

:MAURITANIA 202 0.30% 202 0.30o/c
NA.MmlA 1 0.00% 1 0.00%
~GERIA 81 0.12% 81 0.l2%
PA.KISTAN 3 0.00% 3 0.00%
POLAND 4 0.01% 4 0.01%
~WANDA 94 0.14% 94 0.l4%
SIERRA LEONE 1999 2.94% 1999 2.92%
SOMALIA 4940 7.26% 4940 7.22%
SRI LANKA 2 0.00% 2 0.00%
SUDAN 5951 8.75% 5951 8.70%
~YRIA 8 0.01% 8 0.01%
rrANZANIA 1 0.00% 1 O.OOo/t
THAILAND 4 0.01% 4 o.oi«
TOGO 276 0.41% 276 0.40%
TUNISIA 10 0.01% 10 0.01 ex
UGANDA 12 0.02% 12 0.02CX
VIETNAM 378 100.00% 2730 4.010/( 3108 4.54%
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA 15773 23.19% 15773 23.06%
ZIMBABWE 6 0.010/( 6 0.01%

TOTAL 378 68009 100.0% 68387 100.0o/c

NOTE: Arrival figures do not reflect secondary migration.

~
SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement

37
 TABLE VI
ESTIMATED COSTS OF REFUGEE PROCESSING, MOVEMENT, AND RESETTLEMENT
FY 2002 AND FY 2003 ESTIMATES
($ MILLIONS)

ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
AGENCY FUNDING FUNDING
FY2002 FY2003
(BY ACTIVITY) (BY ACTIVITY)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Refugee Processing: 15.4 15.4

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau for Population, Refugee, and Migration
Refugee Admissions: 100.0 130.0

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Refugee Resettlement·
Refugee Resettlement: 460.2 452.7

TOTAL 575.6 598.1

* Does not include costs associated with the Transitional Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
Medicaid, or SSI programs. Eligibility for ORR's refugee services includes Cuban and Haitian
Entrants, certain Amerasians from Vietnam, victims of a severe form of trafficking and some
victims of torture. None of these additional groups is included in the refugee admissions
ceiling.

38
 TABLE VII

DEPARTURE OF UNHCR-REFERRED REFUGEES FOR RESETTLEMENT

FROM JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 2001
By RESETTLEMENT COUNTRY

PERCENT
RESETTLEMENT OF
TOTAL
COUNTRIES TOTAL
ADMISSIONS

Australia 2,552 8%

Canada 5,119 15%

Denmark 1,034 3%

Finland 746 2%

Netherlands 281 1%

Norway 1,792 5%

New Zealand 473 1%

Sweden 1,704 5%

Switzerland 5 0%

United States 18,342 55%

Other* 1,476 4%

TOTAL 33,524 100%

* Principally to Belgium, Benin, France, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.

Source: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

39
 thl~ +0
Hf(t -1)oS-orz~~
Susan Ginsburg

...-orn:
Setty Swope [meswope@9-11commission.goV]
Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:05 PM
~C~i"IJ
~~
t: --9 'Selz, Janice S'; sginsbUrg@9-11Commission.gov
Team5@9-11commission.gov
Cc: RE: Admissions Stuff
Subject:

_____
Original Message-----
From: Selz, Janice S [mailto:selzJs@state.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 1:42 PM
To: Betty Swope; sginsbUrg@9-11Commission.gov
Subject: RE: Admissions Stuff

...-.
! ~For DAS, AS, US level:
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of population, Refugees, and Migration:
Assistant
(Ms.) KellySecretary,
Ryan Bureau of population, Refugees, and Migration: Arthur E. (Gene) Dewey Under Secretary for Global

Affairs: Paula Dobriansky ~

"more comIng!
_____
Original Message----- g V
From: Betty Swope [mailto:meswope@9-11commission. o ]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26,2003 11:34 AM
To: 'Selz, Janice S'
r: '"'ject: FW: Admissions Stuff

can we get the info about who is in the different boxes.

_____
Original Message-----
From: Susan Ginsburg [mailto:SginsbUrg@9-11commission.goV]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26,2003 10:32 AM
To: MEswope@9-11commission.gov
Subject: FW: Admissions Stuff

We need DAS/AS/US level information ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Betty Swope [mailto:meswope@9-11commission.gOV]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26,2003 10:19 AM
To: team5@9-11commission.gov
Subject: FW: Admissions Stuff

more from prm.

-----Original Message----- v
From: Belz, Janice S [mailto:BelzJs@state.go ]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:50 AM
To: Betty Swope
Subject: RE: Admissions Stuff

is an org chart _I'll also send along a copy of the flow chart and more detail for Susan re countries in regions. btw,
w" tried a new Chinese rest. at Harrison Center the other night -- called Oriental Market -- it's good! j.

1
-----Original Message-----
From: Betty Swope [mailto:meswope@9-11commission.gov]
)nt: Tuesday, August 26,20038:24 AM
I o: 'Belz. Janice S'
iect: RE: Admissions Stuff

Thanks jan. Um< let's see. i think you were going to give us an
organizational chart, but maybe susan took It. we appreciate your excellent briefing. thanks.

b
-----Original Message-----
From: Belz, Janice S [mailto:BelzJs@state.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:51 PM
To: meswope@9-11commission.gov
Subject: Admissions Stuff

Betty,
Here's our most recent stats report; note there are two tabs on the spreadsheet. Am working on a cleaned up flow chart
on SAO processing. Was there anything else we promised? Please holler if so - or if you think of anything else you need.

Best, Jan
«PRM Refugee Admissions03.xls»