Report Contents
What OIG Reviewed
In January 2016, OIG received a complaint alleging that an Assistant Regional Security Officer for Investigations (ARSO-I) at Embassy Sana’a, Yemen, failed to follow regulations and Department policies when, as part of an ongoing passport fraud investigation from 2012 through 2014, he took the passports of individuals holding citizenship from both Yemen and the U.S. These U.S. citizens were unable to leave Yemen, which was in the midst of ongoing violent conflict.
OIG examined the circumstances surrounding the allegations to determine whether the ARSO-I and other Department staff followed applicable regulations and policies in seizing the passports. OIG did not address whether the citizens making the allegations committed passport fraud nor assess the quality of the ARSO-I’s fraud investigation. Several factors affected the nature and timing of OIG’s analysis, including difficulty in locating relevant information, evolving Department assertions about the authority by which it took the passports, and adoption of revised policies.
What OIG Recommends
OIG made four recommendations: develop databases to track and manage passport revocations, retentions, and confiscations; issue guidance on the procedures required to revoke and confiscate passports; clarify the circumstances in which individuals are entitled to limited validity passports to return to the United States if their documents are taken while they are abroad; and clarify the role of the Legal Adviser as the senior legal authority for the Department, including considering whether attorneys in other offices should report directly to the Legal Adviser. The Department concurred with all of OIG’s recommendations.
What OIG Found
The Department does not have a central system to track passport confiscations or retentions. As a result, OIG could not determine the number of passport seizures that occurred at Embassy Sana’a from 2012 to 2014, and the total number remains uncertain. However, because one document provided by the Department contained a list of 31 names with dates on which the passports were taken, OIG focused on these cases. There are two bases in Department regulations that govern its authority to take passports from U.S. citizens: “retention” and “confiscation.” Regardless of the authority by which the Department took the passports at issue here, the Department did not follow relevant standards. If the Department “retained” the passports, officials did not comply fully with required procedures. Furthermore, although the Department acknowledged that retentions are temporary measures, it held many of the passports in question for months (and in some cases, over a year), suggesting that the Department effectively confiscated these documents. Confiscation is permitted only after revocation or pursuant to an arrest. Revocation is the formal process by which the Department invalidates an individual’s passport. Neither an arrest nor revocation occurred before any of the passports were taken.
The Department also failed to comply with relevant standards when it ultimately revoked the passports in all but one of the cases OIG examined. Although the Department must notify the holders in writing of the reason for revocation and their right to appeal, OIG could not confirm that these notices were sent in every case. Even if notices were sent, the affected individuals remained uninformed about the status of their passports for lengthy periods (in one case, almost 2 years).
OIG also identified instances where individuals contacted the Department with questions and received limited information or no response at all. OIG also identified other concerns. First, the lack of a single legal authority within the Department led to significant difficulties in resolving key legal issues. Second, although the Department has updated its policies, issues remain unresolved, including conflicting interpretations of the Department’s authority to seize passports and uncertainty regarding eligibility for limited validity passports.
Report Terms
Report Recommendations
The Bureau of Consular Affairs, Office of Passport Services, in conjunction with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, should develop centralized, searchable databases to track and manage passport revocation cases, as well as retentions of passports and other documents seized on suspicion of fraud when citizens apply for consular services, or under other circumstances, and to track confiscations of such documents if they are seized on grounds other than retention authority.
The Secretary of State should clarify the role of the Office of the Legal Adviser as the senior legal authority for the Department and consider whether attorneys in other offices should report directly to the Legal Adviser.
The Bureau of Consular Affairs should coordinate with the Office of the Legal Adviser to issue guidance and, if necessary, amend the Foreign Affairs Manual to clarify (1) The differences between retention and confiscation of a passport and any other authority that exists to take a passport, the circumstances under which each is authorized, the types of documentation or data entries the Department must create and maintain in exercising each authority, the notifications and advisements that must be given to the document holders in each case, and the fact that retentions must be limited to a specific temporary period. (2) The circumstances in which individuals whose passports are retained, confiscated, or revoked while overseas are entitled to limited validity passports to return to the United States.
The Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security should ensure that all ARSO-Is receive appropriate training on the clarifications described in Recommendation 3 and identify a single point of contact for ARSO-Is and other DS agents seeking legal guidance.