This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 000110 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT FOR CA/FPP MARY ALICE NOYES 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KFRD CMGT CVIS AM
SUBJECT: J-1 SUMMER WORK AND TRAVEL CALLBACK 
SURVEY RESULTS 
 
  ¶1. (U) Sensitive but unclassified; please 
  protect accordingly. 
 
  ¶2. (U) Action request.  Please see paragraph 
  ¶10. 
 
  ------- 
  SUMMARY 
  ------- 
 
  ¶3.  (SBU) Post's Fraud Prevention Unit (FPU) 
  performed a callback survey of all summer 2004 
  J-1 work and travel program participants 
  traveling from Armenia.  Despite new measures 
  to combat fraud, the FPU confirmed that 33% of 
  the program's 321 participants did not return 
  to Armenia.  Difficult as it is to believe, 
  this rate of return is actually better than in 
  previous years.  A few programs in particular, 
  Open Doors (OD), the International Exchange 
  Center (IEC), and Youth Exchange Service (YES) 
  had especially high percentages of participants 
  who did not return to Armenia.  Despite our 
  best efforts, this program seems incurably 
  vulnerable to fraud in Armenia, and we question 
  whether it should continue here.  End Summary. 
 
  ---------- 
  BACKGROUND 
  ---------- 
 
  ¶4.  (SBU) Post has had a long history of 
  problems with J-1 work and travel programs. 
  Previous call-back surveys have revealed high 
  levels of overstay, ranging from 40-60%.  For 
  summer 2004 applicants, Post attempted a more 
  through vetting of participants. 
  Representatives from all of the sponsoring 
  companies arranged a meeting with the GOAM 
  Deputy Head of the Office of Visas and Foreign 
  Registration (OVIR) and the outgoing Consul to 
  protest the low issuance rates.  Post continued 
  to issue only 65% of J-1 work and travel 
  applicants for the season. 
 
  ----------- 
  METHODOLOGY 
  ----------- 
 
  ¶5.  (SBU) FPU maintains a list of all Armenian 
  nationals who receive J-1 visas for summer work 
  and travel programs.  This list is sorted by 
  program sponsor and contains local phone 
  numbers for almost every applicant.  Each LES 
  in the section called 50-80 of the numbers and 
  requested to speak personally with the 
  applicant.  If the applicant was not available, 
  the LES would continue to call until they 
  either spoke personally with the applicant or 
  were told that the applicant is no longer in 
  Armenia.  Entries with outdated numbers or no 
  numbers were listed as inconclusive.  The Fraud 
  Prevention Manager (FPM) then calculated 
  results based on this information for almost 
  100% of the population. 
 
  -------------------- 
  RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 
  -------------------- 
 
  ¶6.  (SBU) The summer 2004 work and travel 
  programs in Armenia were the Armenian Center 
  for Youth and Student International Relations 
  and Exchanges (ACE), Armenian Center for 
  International Cooperation (ACI), Armenia 
  International Exchange Program (AIEP), 
  International Exchange Center (IEC), Open Doors 
  (OD), Youth Exchange Armenia (YEA), and Youth 
  Exchange Service (YES). 
 
  ProgramTotal     Overstay  Inconclusive 
  ACE  81        20        6 
  ACI  33        8         3 
  AIEP 54        12        5 
  IEC  34        17        4 
  OD        19        13        3 
  YEA  23        7         6 
  YES  45        18        9 
 
  The total percentage of program participants 
  still in the United States ranges from the 33% 
  that are confirmed overstays up to 45% if all 
  of those unable to be reached are in the United 
  States.  While the percentage of overstays has 
  dropped from previous years, several programs 
  (IEC, OD, and YES) have approximately half of 
  their participants still in the United States. 
 
  -------------- 
  FUNNY BUSINESS 
  -------------- 
 
  ¶7.  (SBU) Due to the high number of overstays 
  during previous work & travel seasons, FPM 
  interviewed a few returned applicants about 
  their application experiences with the 
  sponsoring companies.  Respondents alleged that 
  some of these companies charged between USD 500 
  and 2000 per application.  FPM also received a 
  number of anonymous allegations via letter and 
  telephone that many of these companies were 
  charging a USD 30 "finger-scanning" charge to 
  applicants after they received their visa, 
  falsely claiming that the fee is intended to 
  offset the costs of finger-scanning arrivals at 
  ports of entry by US immigration inspectors. 
 
  ¶8.  (SBU) During this year's callback survey, 
  FPM received a number of reports that unknown 
  persons alleging to be from the U.S. Embassy 
  were calling the families of overstayed 
  applicants.  These families were instructed to 
  report in case of inquiries that, their 
  relatives had returned.  These reports came 
  from families of applicants who traveled under 
  the AIEP. 
 
  ¶9.  (SBU) FPM received one disturbing report 
  that the family of one overstayed participant 
  was called by YES and informed that they had to 
  pay a fine of USD 3000 to compensate for the 
  fact that their relative had not returned. 
 
  ------------------ 
  GUIDANCE REQUESTED 
  ------------------ 
 
  ¶10. (SBU) Given the high number of overstayed 
  participants, and the behavior of the companies 
  sponsoring their travel, Post will be very 
  reluctant to issue J-1 work and travel visas in 
  the near future.  Post requests guidance on how 
  to address this issue.  Above all, Post 
  strongly recommends canceling the IEC, OD, YES 
  and AIEP programs because of their excessive 
  overstay rate and/or unethical practices. 
 
  EVANS