VZCZCXRO3513
PP RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHNEH
DE RUEHCG #0158/01 1470212
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 270212Z MAY 09
FM AMCONSUL CHENNAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2286
INFO RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 3681
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 5376
RUEHCI/AMCONSUL KOLKATA 1100
RUEHNEH/AMCONSUL HYDERABAD

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 CHENNAI 000158 
 
CA/FPP FOR JILL NYSTROM 
DS/CR/CFI FOR DAVID BRACKINS 
DS/CR/OCI FOR GALEN NACE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KFRD CVIS CMGT ASEC IN
SUBJECT: Mission India FY08 Visa Referral Validation Study 
 
Ref:  A) 08 Chennai 351, B) 08 New Delhi 3190, C) New Delhi 7, D) 
Chennai 157, E) 08 Chennai 392, F) 08 Chennai 382 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary.  Mission India recently conducted a validation 
study of all 1,408 approved non-immigrant visa applicants who 
utilized the visa referral program in FY2008 in New Delhi, Chennai, 
Mumbai and Kolkata.  The study showed that 99.4 percent of the visa 
recipients have entered and departed the United States, were in 
status or did not travel.  Nine applicants (0.6 percent) -- all New 
Delhi referrals -- appear to be illegally present in the United 
States.  Stricter procedures are in place since those referrals were 
made in order to eliminate potential overstays.  End Summary. 
 
----------- 
Methodology 
----------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) This is the second Mission India referral validation study 
to take advantage of the comprehensive entry/exit records available 
through the USVISIT program.  As with the study for FY06 and FY07 
(ref A) CA/CST compiled referral data for each post in Mission India 
(except for Hyderabad, which began visa adjudication in March 2009), 
which CA/FPP then passed to DHS to obtain ADIS entry/exit records. 
Each post's Fraud Prevention Unit (FPU) then culled the entry/exit 
data to identify potential overstays as those with an ADIS entry 
record but no departure record and who stayed beyond the standard 
admissible period (e.g. more than six months on a B1/B2 visa).  The 
FPUs attempted to contact potential referral overstays via their 
reported contact telephone numbers, and if unsuccessful, the 
referring office at each post was enlisted to verify current contact 
information and/or to verify if the applicants had returned.  Only 
nine applicants, all from New Delhi, could not be contacted, had 
entry but no departure records from the U.S., and had no record of 
legal adjustment of status with DHS. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Overall, the results of the Mission India referral 
validation study for FY08 are: 
 
   Total Issued Referrals: 1,408 
   Travel and Return, No Travel or in status: 1,397 
   In Status but applied for adjustment: 2 
   Potential Overstays: 9 (0.6 percent) 
 
The total volume of referrals decreased significantly in FY08.  In 
FY06 and FY07, Mission India averaged 2,212 visa referral issuances 
per year.  This drop in referrals throughout the Mission reflects 
the success of the visa blitz.  As wait times were reduced from six 
months to two weeks, applicants did not necessarily need referrals 
to obtain appointments in a timely fashion. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) For the purposes of this study, the primary concern was to 
determine if applicants had remained in legal status.  This does not 
address the fundamental question of whether each traveler acted in 
the true spirit of the referral program by using the visa for the 
purpose stated in the referral.  For example, two of the referral 
applicants applied for adjustments of status while in the United 
States.  The one applicant from Mumbai who did not return had a 
previous F-1 visa and subsequently completed his Optional Practical 
Training at the Voice of America (VOA) in the Hindi language 
service.  The Public Affairs Section referred him for the purpose of 
returning to VOA on a J-1 visa, but he adjusted to Legal Permanent 
Resident status after rejoining VOA.  The Political Section in New 
Delhi referred a second individual to attend a networking event in 
March 2008.  The applicant in fact traveled six months later, spent 
six months in the U.S., and remains in the U.S. after filing for an 
adjustment of status. 
 
¶5.  (U) Comment.  The CCD currently has no reports to compile lists 
of referral applicants.  Mission India strongly recommends that 
posts be given a more robust reporting tool, and that in the 
meantime the CCD should include a referral report that collects 
names, dates of birth and passport numbers for any given date range. 
 Mission India thanks CA/CST for producing the reports necessary to 
complete this study.  End Comment. 
 
----------------- 
New Delhi Results 
----------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) In FY08, New Delhi approved 589 total Class A and Class B 
visa referrals.  Of those 589 applicants, FPU identified nine 
individuals with Class B referrals who accrued unlawful presence. 
Four of these applicants were part of a group referral by the 
Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) to take part in a "scrap trade 
 
CHENNAI 00000158  002 OF 003 
 
 
mission" and visit the Scrap Recycling Industry Convention and 
Exposition in Las Vegas.  A fifth was also referred by FCS in order 
to attend the International Franchise Expo.  While FCS only 
submitted these referrals in order to obtain group appointments, 
following common practice at that time, the profiles of these 
applicants indicate that they would have engendered a higher level 
of scrutiny in the regular visa process.  One in particular had had 
multiple prior refusals.  A review of this group after the 
application process led to a review of group appointment procedures 
and discussions with FCS about whether such referrals were in the 
USG interest.  FCS now submits few referrals for applicants 
attending trade shows. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Two of the nine overstays were Bhutanese applicants who 
were reportedly family members of the former Prime Minister of 
Bhutan.  Post has reported separately on fraud (ref B) and overstays 
(ref C) among Bhutanese applicants.  High rates of non-compliance 
among B1/B2 visa holders have led us to scrutinize all Bhutanese 
applicants more closely.  Similarly, Mission India recently reported 
on the high rate of overstays of Tibetan applicants (ref D), two of 
whom were referrals. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) None of the nine overstays mentioned above came after May 
2008, when new oversight procedures were put in place by Consular 
Section management to review incoming referrals.  RSO is reviewing 
these cases to make sure there was no malfeasance by USG personnel. 
 
 
--------------- 
Chennai Results 
--------------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) In Chennai, 545 referral applicants received visas in 
FY08, and none of them overstayed.  The FY07 study uncovered five 
overstays, four of whom were related to a sitting Member of 
Parliament (ref E).  Sixteen Class B referrals were refused, 
including four "executives" from Saravana Bhavan, a major South 
Indian hotel and restaurant chain, who appeared to be cooks. 
Several months later Post confirmed that the CEO for Saravana Bhavan 
was in fact smuggling cooks into the U.S. as executives, and he was 
arrested (ref F). 
 
-------------- 
Mumbai Results 
-------------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) Mumbai received 269 referrals in FY08 and approved 260. 
As mentioned in para 4, only one referral applicant did not return 
to India, but he did remain in legal status.  The Public Affairs 
Section referred 137 cases, almost half of Mumbai's total referrals. 
 Of the nine refusals, two are still pending for Security Advisory 
Opinions, and the rest were referred by the Economic Section or by 
officers in New Delhi. 
 
--------------- 
Kolkata Results 
--------------- 
 
¶11.  (SBU) In FY08, Kolkata approved 14 referral applicants.  All of 
these applicants traveled and returned to India.  Referral 
applicants in Kolkata have a 100 percent return rate for the last 
three years.  Referral numbers are generally low due to the short 
waiting period to obtain a visa appointment.  Consular management 
will promote the use of the referral program to other officers as a 
public diplomacy tool. 
 
----------- 
Conclusions 
----------- 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Overall, Mission India's referral program appears to be 
working as designed and the rate of overstays for the entire Mission 
was less than one percent. However, even one overstay on the 
referral program is one too many, and each of Mission India's 
consular chiefs has reminded their respective posts of the criteria 
and procedures for referrals and how to utilize the referral program 
appropriately to facilitate legitimate travel of USG interest.  The 
Minister Counselor for Consular Affairs also raised this issue 
during a country team meeting, which was attended via DVC by all 
posts in Mission India. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) The recent conviction of a former DHS employee for alien 
smuggling and visa fraud highlights the need for all officers to use 
the official referral policy as the only means of providing visa 
 
CHENNAI 00000158  003 OF 003 
 
 
support.  As was reported in a Diplomatic Security press release on 
April 13, a former immigration adjudicator with Citizenship and 
Immigration Services was found guilty of submitting fraudulent visa 
applications to the Department of Labor and to the Department of 
Homeland Security, for which he was paid $100,000.  Witnesses from 
Consulate General Mumbai testified that the employee called the 
consulate to vouch for the veracity of the visa application, 
informing a consular official he was employed by the Department of 
Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service.  The 
evidence showed that he also accessed his DHS computer to see if he 
or a visa recipient were under investigation. 
 
¶14.  (SBU) No malfeasance trends have been detected in the referral 
program, and the number of referrals is decreasing.  All officers 
throughout Mission India are reminded that referrals can be an 
effective foreign policy tool, when used appropriately.  Consular 
managers will continue to monitor the program and conduct annual 100 
percent verification of referrals. 
 
¶15.  (U) This cable has been cleared by all posts in Mission India. 
 
KAPLAN