This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-133 
entitled 'Foreign Affairs: Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry 
Adoption Process, but Further Enhancements Are Needed' which was 
released on October 21, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate: 

October 2005: 

Foreign Affairs: 

Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process, but Further 
Enhancements Are Needed: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-133]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-133, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

U.S. intercountry adoptions nearly tripled from more than 8,000 to more 
than 22,000 between fiscal years 1994 and 2004. While the Department of 
State (State) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
manage the process, factors ranging from corruption to inadequate legal 
frameworks in foreign countries could lead to abuses such as the 
abduction of children. GAO (1) describes the U.S. intercountry adoption 
process, (2) assesses the U.S. government’s efforts to manage the 
intercountry adoption process, (3) assesses U.S. efforts to strengthen 
safeguards and mitigate against the potential for fraudulent adoptions, 
and (4) describes the Hague Convention (Convention) and the statuses of 
U.S. and top sending countries’ implementation of the Convention. 

What GAO Found: 

Adoptive parents must meet domestic and foreign government requirements 
to complete intercountry adoptions. However, factors such as foreign 
governments’ procedures may contribute to varying time frames for 
adoptions. USCIS and State are the domestic agencies responsible for 
intercountry adoptions. 

USCIS and State made efforts to enhance the process by improving 
interagency coordination and communication with parents and developing 
additional guidance on adoptions. In addition, USCIS streamlined the 
intercountry adoption process by eliminating the application and fees 
for parents to obtain U.S. citizenship certificates for eligible 
children. While USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of the 
adoptions process, GAO found that the agency does not have a formal 
quality assurance program in place where results are summarized and 
reported to senior agency officials so that an assessment of the 
quality of the intercountry adoption process can be made over time. 

Factors in foreign countries’ environments may allow for abuses in 
adoptions. To reduce the likelihood of such abuses, USCIS and State 
have taken such steps as holding diplomatic discussions with foreign 
governments and imposing additional U.S. procedural requirements. 
However, USCIS has not established a formal and systematic process for 
documenting specific incidents of problems in foreign countries. Such a 
process would allow for a systematic approach to analyze problematic 
trends and retain institutional knowledge. 

The Hague Convention governing intercountry adoptions establishes 
minimum standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk 
associated with the adoption process. The United States has signed the 
Convention and taken several steps toward implementing the Convention; 
however, key steps remain, including formal ratification of the 
Convention. Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about 
39 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have 
ratified the Convention. 

Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 1994 through 
2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, 
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security work with the 
Director of USCIS to formalize its quality assurance process so it can 
assess the quality of the adoption process over time and identify areas 
where training or guidance may be warranted, and to consider 
establishing a formal and systematic approach to document specific 
incidents of problems identified in foreign countries to retain 
institutional knowledge and analyze trends. DHS and State agreed with 
our findings and recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-133. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-
4268 or fordj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

USCIS and State Implement Law for U.S. Intercountry Adoptions, with 
Foreign Governments Playing a Role in the Process: 

U.S. Agencies Improved the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process, but 
USCIS Lacks a Formal Quality Assurance Process: 

USCIS and State Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Safeguards to the 
Process in Foreign Environments, but USCIS Does Not Systematically 
Document Incidents of Potential Abuses: 

United States and Some U.S. Top Sending Countries Have Not Ratified 
Multilateral Convention That Establishes Minimum Intercountry Adoption 
Standards: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Country, 
Fiscal Year 2004: 

Appendix III: List of USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices: 

Appendix IV: Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. Intercountry 
Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State: 

GAO Comments: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Countries That Currently Have Restrictions on Intercountry 
Adoptions, as of September 30, 2005: 

Table 2: Approximate Length of Time for Completion of Adoption Overseas 
and Estimated Adoption Costs in Top Four Sending Countries (2005): 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Number U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 1994 
through 2004: 

Figure 2: Distribution of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Sending 
Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004: 

Figure 3: Number of Intercountry Adoptions from Top Four Sending 
Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004: 

Figure 4: U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process: 

Figure 5: Hague Implementation Time Line by Fiscal Year: 

Figure 6: World Map of Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. 
Intercountry Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004: 

Abbreviations: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

IAA: Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000: 

INA: Immigration and Nationality Act: 

INS: Immigration and Naturalization Service: 

IR: immediate relative: 

IVO: Immigrant Visa Overseas System: 

PAS: Performance Analysis System: 

UNICEF: United Nations Children's Fund: 

USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

Letter October 21, 2005: 

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

More and more U.S. citizens are starting and expanding their families 
by adopting children from other countries. The number of children that 
entered the United States through intercountry adoptions increased from 
about 8,000 in fiscal year 1994 to about 22,000 in fiscal year 
2004.[Footnote 1] The U.S. intercountry adoption process is managed by 
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State (State) and is 
complicated by a number of domestic and foreign government requirements 
for adopting a child from another country. Prospective parents often 
use the services of an adoption agency to help guide them through this 
adoption process and identify orphans that need families. To adopt a 
foreign-born child that will live in the United States, the prospective 
parents must meet qualifications outlined by U.S. immigration law. 
Additionally, the child and the prospective parents must meet the legal 
requirements for adoption in the child's country of origin, and the 
child must meet requirements outlined by U.S. immigration law to enter 
the United States. Despite the existence of such U.S. and foreign 
government regulations, a number of factors in foreign countries, such 
as corruption, may lead to abuses in intercountry adoption procedures. 
In recent years, several countries have suspended their intercountry 
adoption programs in response to concerns over abuses in intercountry 
adoptions, as well as to review their intercountry adoption processes 
and improve safeguards. The 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of 
Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption 
(Convention) provides additional safeguards by establishing uniform 
standards for intercountry adoptions. 

In response to your interest in intercountry adoptions, this report (1) 
describes the U.S. intercountry adoption process, (2) assesses USCIS' 
and State's efforts to manage the intercountry adoption process, (3) 
assesses U.S. efforts to strengthen safeguards and mitigate against the 
potential for fraudulent adoptions, and (4) describes the Hague 
Convention and the statuses of U.S. and top sending countries' 
implementation of the Convention. 

To address our objectives, in Washington, D.C., we interviewed USCIS 
and State officials responsible for intercountry adoptions and reviewed 
relevant agency documents on the U.S. intercountry adoption process. We 
also visited USCIS offices in New York and Los Angeles to see how USCIS 
implements domestic procedures related to intercountry adoptions. Both 
of these offices ranked in the top 20 percent of domestic offices for 
the number of intercountry adoption cases received in fiscal year 2004 
and demonstrate geographic diversity. In addition, we contacted U.S. 
adoption organizations and agencies to understand their roles, as well 
as some adoptive parents who belonged to national adoptive parent 
support groups and were willing to respond to us, to hear about their 
experiences with the U.S. intercountry adoption process. To understand 
the intercountry adoption environment and U.S. processes and procedures 
in overseas locations, we visited Guatemala and Russia. These two 
countries were consistently ranked among the countries where the 
majority of children adopted into the United States originated from in 
fiscal years 1994 to 2004. In both countries, we met with USCIS and 
State Bureau of Consular Affairs officials managing the U.S. 
intercountry adoption process, foreign government officials, and 
private adoption facilitators, and visited orphanages to learn about 
their respective roles in the adoption process. We conducted research 
on the Convention by reviewing it, obtaining information on countries' 
current statuses, verifying that the Convention's Web site data was 
current through a discussion with a member of the Convention, and 
discussing the implementation statuses with Guatemalan and Russian 
government officials. Appendix I contains a more detailed description 
of our scope and methodology. 

We performed our work from February to October 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Adopting a child from a foreign country is a complex process with a 
variety of domestic and foreign government requirements that 
prospective parents must meet. The Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA) establishes requirements for prospective adoptive parents seeking 
to adopt children from foreign countries and criteria for the child's 
entry into the United States. USCIS and State are the two federal 
agencies responsible for implementing the INA's intercountry adoption 
requirements. In addition to domestic requirements, the parents and the 
child must also meet the requirements for adoption established by the 
national government where the child resides. USCIS is the principal 
federal focal point for receiving and processing intercountry adoption 
applications, determining the parent's eligibility and fitness to 
adopt, and determining whether the child meets the INA's definition of 
an orphan. In overseas locations where there is no USCIS office, USCIS 
has delegated its authority to determine orphan status to 
State.[Footnote 2] In addition, State's overseas consular offices issue 
visas for entry into the United States. After the U.S. intercountry 
adoption requirements have been met and the child has immigrated to the 
United States, eligible children receive automatic U.S. citizenship. 
Due to various factors, including foreign country requirements, time 
frames and costs incurred for adopting children may vary. 

We found that USCIS and State made efforts to improve the process by 
implementing many of the priorities that an interagency task force 
identified in 2002. To enhance the process, both agencies improved 
interagency coordination and communication with parents and developed 
additional guidance. In addition, USCIS made efforts to streamline the 
intercountry adoption process by eliminating the application and fees 
for parents to obtain U.S. citizenship certificates for eligible 
children. The task force identified problems with consistency in 
applying procedures among adoption adjudicators and a lack of 
centralized guidance from headquarters. To ensure better consistency 
among its adjudicators, USCIS developed standard operating procedures 
in 2003. However, the agency has not provided training on these new 
procedures. Although USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of 
the adoptions process, we found that the agency does not have a formal 
quality assurance program in place where results are summarized and 
formally reported to senior agency officials. To help ensure the 
accuracy and completeness of adoption documents, in early 2004, a USCIS 
district office began a document review of completed adoption files and 
addressed individual cases through e-mails sent to relevant officials 
at USCIS and State. However, a more structured approach would allow the 
agencies to assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process 
over time, ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware 
of the results, and identify opportunities where additional training or 
guidance may be warranted. 

Although USCIS and State have taken steps to strengthen safeguards to 
reduce the likelihood of fraudulent adoptions in foreign countries, 
USCIS has not established a procedure to systematically document 
problematic incidents that it has identified in its work so that these 
trends can be analyzed by its staff. Some factors in the foreign 
country, such as corruption and the lack of a legal framework over 
intercountry adoptions, may allow for inappropriate activities in 
adoptions to occur. To reduce the likelihood of abuses in intercountry 
adoptions, State and USCIS have taken such steps as holding diplomatic 
discussions with foreign governments and imposing additional U.S. 
procedural requirements. For instance, in Guatemala, concerns of 
illegally obtained children for adoption led to the U.S. requirement 
for DNA testing of mothers and children. Also, USCIS and State provide 
publicly available information on Web sites regarding country-specific 
requirements and any known problems with the countries' processes. 
Although agency officials are aware of general risk environments in 
foreign countries, USCIS has not established a formal and systematic 
process for analyzing and documenting specific incidents of potential 
abuses in the foreign environment. Such a process would include 
documenting USCIS staff's knowledge of unscrupulous facilitators and 
disreputable adoption agencies identified in their work on adoptions. 
Given the experience with past intercountry adoption concerns related 
to child selling and buying activities, documentation of problematic 
individuals and incidents in foreign countries would allow for a 
systematic approach to analyze problematic trends and retain 
institutional knowledge. 

The Convention governs intercountry adoptions by establishing minimum 
standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated with 
intercountry adoption processes; however, since the United States and 
three out of its four top sending countries have not ratified it, the 
benefits of the Convention have not been fully realized. The Convention 
provides some safeguards by establishing international minimum 
standards in the intercountry adoption process. Under the Convention, 
countries are to designate a Central Authority to carry out the 
Convention, prohibit improper financial gains from intercountry 
adoptions, and accredit adoption service providers that perform certain 
functions specified by the Convention. The United States has signed the 
Convention, designating State as the Central Authority, and State has 
taken several steps toward implementing the Convention. However, key 
steps remain, which include finalizing regulations and accrediting 
entities to carry out some of the functions in the adoption process. 
Once these steps are completed, the United States plans to ratify the 
Convention. Although State's target date for implementation is fiscal 
year 2007, agency officials stated that they could not predict how long 
it will take to complete implementation due to the reliance on other 
bodies to complete certain steps, such as adoption service providers 
applying for accreditation. Three of the top four sending countries of 
U.S. adoptions over the past 10 fiscal years--Guatemala, Russia, and 
South Korea--have not ratified the Convention. In September 2005, 
China, the top sending country of U.S. adoption, ratified the 
Convention. Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about 
39 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have 
ratified the Convention. 

To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following 
actions working with the Director of USCIS to: 

* formalize its quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can 
assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process over time, 
ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware of the 
outcomes of the quality assurance process, and identify opportunities 
where additional training or guidance may be warranted; and: 

* consider establishing a formal and systematic approach to document 
specific incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions that it has 
identified in foreign countries to retain institutional knowledge and 
analyze trends of individuals or organizations involved in improper 
activities. 

The Departments of Homeland Security and State provided written 
comments on a draft of this report, which we have reprinted in 
appendixes V and VI. DHS generally agreed with our findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations. State also agreed with our findings 
and conclusions and provided additional information regarding its 
outreach efforts to the adoption community. In addition, State provided 
supplementary information on its Actions on Intercountry Adoptions in 
Selected Countries in appendix VI. 

Background: 

The INA[Footnote 3] defines U.S. parameters for intercountry adoptions. 
INA establishes criteria for children's entry into the United States 
and eligibility requirements for prospective adoptive parents of 
children from foreign countries. A child is eligible for an immediate 
relative (IR) classification under the INA if the child meets the 
definition of an "orphan," as stipulated in the act.[Footnote 4] In 
addition, adopting parents must meet certain requirements related to 
their age, financial status, and medical condition. 

Over the past 5 years, there have been legislative developments in the 
U.S. intercountry adoption process, with further changes proposed. The 
Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA)[Footnote 5] provides the 
domestic legislation to implement the 1993 Hague Convention on 
Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry 
Adoption, hereinafter referred to as the Hague Convention or the 
Convention in this report. The IAA designates State to serve as the 
Central Authority of the United States to carry out most 
responsibilities of the Convention, including accreditation of adoption 
service providers.[Footnote 6] Also in 2000, the United States enacted 
the Child Citizenship Act[Footnote 7] to allow automatic citizenship 
for eligible adopted children.[Footnote 8] Furthermore, in 2005 
congressional legislation was introduced regarding the U.S. 
intercountry adoption process.[Footnote 9] 

Intercountry Adoptions Have Steadily Increased: 

Intercountry adoptions may be a viable alternative to domestic 
adoptions for parents interested in adopting an infant, according to 
the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. In fiscal years 2002 
to 2004, DHS reported that at least 40 percent of children adopted by 
U.S. parents were under age 1, and at least 42 percent were between the 
ages of 1 and 4. In the past 10 years, the annual number of U.S. 
intercountry adoptions has consistently increased and nearly tripled, 
from more than 8,000 in fiscal year 1994 to more than 22,000 in fiscal 
year 2004 (see fig. 1).[Footnote 10] 

Figure 1: Number U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 1994 
through 2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The majority of children adopted into the United States between 1994 
and 2004 have originated from four countries--China, Russia, South 
Korea, and Guatemala--which consistently ranked among the top five 
sending countries of children adopted by U.S. parents (see app. II for 
a listing of all intercountry adoptions by country in fiscal year 
2004). In total, adoptions from these four countries accounted for over 
70 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in the past 10 years (see 
fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Distribution of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Sending 
Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[A] Each of the countries included in "other countries" makes up less 
than 3% of intercountry adoptions during this time. 

[End of figure] 

Adoptions from China, Russia, and Guatemala increased significantly 
between fiscal years 1994 and 2004, accounting for the vast majority 
(92 percent) of the total increase (about 14,000) in U.S. intercountry 
adoptions during this time. The number of adoptions from South Korea 
has remained more consistent during this time (see fig. 3). 

Figure 3: Number of Intercountry Adoptions from Top Four Sending 
Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Although the United States is one of the world's leading receiving 
countries for intercountry adoptions, some U.S. children are adopted by 
foreigners. Statistics on the number of U.S. children adopted by 
foreigners are not currently collected on a national level,[Footnote 
11] however, Canada, for example, reports adoptions of over 700 U.S. 
children from 1993 to 2002. 

Current Restrictions on Intercountry Adoptions: 

In recent years, several countries, including the United States, have 
restricted[Footnote 12] intercountry adoptions from or to all or 
specified countries for various reasons, including concerns of fraud, 
medical concerns, natural disasters,[Footnote 13] and time allowed for 
a country to review safeguards in its intercountry adoption process. 
Although some of these restrictions have since been removed, such as 
those recently in China, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam,[Footnote 14] several 
remain in effect. Currently, the United States has a suspension on 
intercountry adoptions from Cambodia--the only U.S.-imposed suspension--
which was issued in 2001 due to evidence of widespread corruption. 
Additionally, several foreign governments currently have restricted 
intercountry adoptions, in some cases because the countries are 
examining their adoption process (see table 1). 

Table 1: Countries That Currently Have Restrictions on Intercountry 
Adoptions, as of September 30, 2005: 

Country: Belarus; 
Reason for restriction: Adoptions are on hold while the government 
conducts an investigation of allegations of adoption irregularities; a 
new adoption law was signed in January 2005, but a new adoption 
procedure has not yet been finalized. 

Country: Costa Rica; 
Reason for restriction: Issued a moratorium in 2003 with countries that 
have not ratified the Hague Convention; however, Costa Rican law 
permits intercountry adoptions to be performed by attorneys, and 
maintains no restrictions on such adoptions. 

Country: Georgia; 
Reason for restriction: Banned directed adoptions, in which birth 
parents relinquish a child directly to adoptive parents, in 2003 (this 
was the most common method of adoption by U.S. citizens in Georgia); 
State notes that this is generally viewed in the adoption community as 
a positive development. 

Country: Romania; 
Reason for restriction: Limited intercountry adoptions to biological 
grandparents, effective in 2005, making permanent the moratorium it 
issued in 2001 because its adoption framework did not protect the best 
interest of the child. 

Country: Ukraine; 
Reason for restriction: Suspended acceptance of new adoption dossiers 
from U.S. citizens and citizens of several other countries; according 
to Ukraine, this decision was based in part on the past noncompliance 
of some families with post adoption reports required by Ukrainian law. 

Source: GAO analysis of State information. 

[End of table] 

USCIS and State Implement Law for U.S. Intercountry Adoptions, with 
Foreign Governments Playing a Role in the Process: 

The U.S. intercountry adoption process, which is defined by the INA and 
primarily implemented by USCIS and State, is complicated by a number of 
domestic and foreign government requirements and can be separated into 
three phases.[Footnote 15] First, USCIS determines the parents' 
eligibility and fitness to adopt through its review of the prospective 
parents' application, home study reports, and background checks. Next, 
USCIS--or State, in countries where USCIS has no offices--determines 
the child's orphan status by examining documents and, when warranted, 
conducting overseas investigations. Finally, State's overseas consular 
officers verify the child's orphan status and eligibility for an 
immigrant visa. (Fig. 4 illustrates the three phases of the U.S. 
government's process for intercountry adoptions.) Depending on the type 
of visa issued, children admitted to the United States may qualify for 
automatic citizenship. Various factors, such as different foreign 
government's requirements, contribute to varying lengths of time 
required for the process and the varying costs incurred by adoptive 
parents. 

Phase I--Prospective Parents' Suitability to Adopt Is Determined: 

In the first phase of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, USCIS 
determines the potential parents' suitability to adopt a child who 
resides outside of the United States. The INA defines qualifications 
for prospective adoptive parents.[Footnote 16] USCIS implements this 
requirement through its 68 domestic offices.[Footnote 17] Prospective 
parents submit to USCIS fingerprints; a filing fee; home 
study;[Footnote 18] proof of compliance with preadoption requirements 
of the prospective parent's state of residence; other documents such as 
proof of citizenship, age, marriage license, and divorce decrees; and, 
in some cases, an Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition 
(Form I-600A).[Footnote 19] The home study is completed by a party 
approved under the laws of the prospective parent's state of residence, 
such as an adoption agency, and includes interviews with the family and 
an assessment of the prospective parent's suitability to adopt a child. 
After USCIS receives all required documents from parents, the agency 
reviews the documents, conducts background checks on all adult members 
living in the household, and makes its determination. If USCIS 
determines that the prospective parents are eligible to adopt and fit 
to provide the child with proper care, then it sends them a Notice of 
Favorable Determination Concerning Applications for Advance Processing 
of Orphan Petition (Form I-171H or I-797C). 

Phase II--Child's Status as an Orphan Is Determined: 

The second phase in the process requires U.S. federal agencies to 
determine the orphan status of the child to be adopted, as defined by 
the INA. Depending upon the location of the child, either an USCIS 
officer or State consular officer determines whether the prospective 
adoptive child meets the U.S. immigration law definition of an 
orphan.[Footnote 20] 

Once a child has been identified, adopting parents file a Petition to 
Classify the Orphan as an Immediate Relative (Form I-600), provide 
proof of the child's age and identity, proof that the child is an 
orphan, and proof of a foreign government-issued adoption decree or 
guardianship. In order to obtain adoption decree or guardianship in the 
foreign country, parents must meet the foreign government's laws and 
requirements. Foreign governments may place additional requirements on 
prospective parents, including those regarding the prospective parents' 
age and residency in country, as well as the requirement for parents to 
agree to provide post adoption information. The Russian government, for 
example, requires an agreement from adoptive parents to provide 
periodic and on time postplacement reports. However, Russian government 
officials have noted that American adoptive parents have not always 
complied with this requirement. 

USCIS or State officials review the documentation for Form I-600 and, 
depending on the specifics of the case, may also undertake a field 
investigation. Sometimes officers interview birth mothers or visit 
orphanages to verify the circumstances surrounding the child's orphan 
status. Following the completed review, USCIS or State officials make a 
determination. If all documents are sufficient and the child has been 
determined an orphan, USCIS or State officials approve the I-600 
petition and send parents a Notice of Approval of Relative Immigration 
Visa Petition (Form I-171). 

Phase III--Child's Eligibility to Immigrate to the United States Is 
Determined: 

The third step of the process involves State's issuance of an immigrant 
visa to the child for admission into the United States.[Footnote 21] 
With respect to state law, most states grant full recognition to a 
foreign adoption decree. In some instances, states require adoptive 
parents to validate the foreign decree.[Footnote 22] 

After parents have an approved Form I-600, they submit a completed 
Immigrant Visa application (Form DS-230, Parts I and II) along with the 
application fee and required documentation. The consular officer then 
examines the documents, which include the following:[Footnote 23] 

* child's birth certificate and passport (or other valid travel 
document); 

* evidence of adoption or legal custody for purposes of emigration and 
adoption, as well as evidence of whether the adopting parents saw the 
child prior to or during adoption proceedings (if applicable); and: 

* record of medical exam from the embassy's panel physician (this exam 
is largely to ensure that children with communicable diseases do not 
enter the United States; parents are advised by State to consult with 
other professionals for complete physical or mental evaluations of the 
orphan's health). If significant health problems are uncovered, parents 
may be asked to sign an affidavit acknowledging their desire to 
continue with the case given the medical condition of the child and, in 
some cases, parents may be requested to sign an affidavit regarding 
their intent to obtain necessary vaccinations for the child upon entry 
to the United States. 

State consular officers then approve the child for an IR-3 or IR-4 
immigrant visa,[Footnote 24] if all documentation for the orphan is in 
order. State provides an immigrant visa package[Footnote 25] for the 
child to be presented to the Customs and Border Protection officer at 
the U.S. port of entry. According to State officials, the visa issuance 
process usually takes about 1 or 2 days. 

Figure 4: U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

U.S. Citizenship Requirements Differ Depending on Visa Classification: 

The INA establishes the criteria by which foreign-born children adopted 
by U.S. parents become U.S. citizens. Foreign-born children under the 
age of 18 admitted to the United States and residing permanently in the 
United States based on an issued IR-3 visa automatically acquire U.S. 
citizenship as of the date of admission to the United States. USCIS 
reviews IR-3 visa packages and sends Certificates of Citizenship to 
eligible children without requiring any additional forms or fees. In 
most cases, children that receive IR-4 visas may automatically acquire 
U.S. citizenship at entry if there was a final adoption abroad by a 
U.S. citizen parent and the state where the child resides does not 
require readoption. Other children that receive IR-4 visas acquire U.S. 
citizenship upon full and final adoption in the United States. 

A Range of Factors Contribute to Varying Adoption Completion Times and 
Costs: 

Various factors make it difficult to generalize the length of time 
required and exact costs incurred by adoptive parents for intercountry 
adoptions. Country-specific adoption requirements, particularly in the 
top sending countries of U.S. intercountry adoptions, may contribute to 
the different time frames it may take to adopt a child. For example, 
the Russian government requires adoptive parents to travel to Russia to 
meet the prospective adoptive child. Since Russia also requires that 
the child remain in Russia before the court hearing, adoptive parents 
may travel a second time to Russia to attend the court hearing and 
adopt the child. In addition, procedural requirements in the foreign 
country may be difficult to meet. For instance, in Guatemala, birth 
certificates of the adopted child and documents proving the identity of 
birth mothers may be difficult and time-consuming to locate. Other 
factors, such as the prospective parents' ability to provide adequate 
and timely information to meet U.S. intercountry adoption requirements, 
may also contribute to the length of time it takes for U.S. government 
officials to approve adoptions. For example, prospective parents may 
file application forms for intercountry adoptions to USCIS, which 
allows prospective parents up to 12 months to submit supportive 
documentation, such as the home study. Estimated total adoption costs 
incurred by adoptive parents may also vary depending on the foreign 
country.[Footnote 26] Table 2 shows the variations on the estimated 
length of time that foreign governments take to approve typical U.S. 
intercountry adoption cases in country and estimated cost of an 
adoption incurred by adoptive parents among the top sending countries 
of U.S. intercountry adoptions. 

Table 2: Approximate Length of Time for Completion of Adoption Overseas 
and Estimated Adoption Costs in Top Four Sending Countries (2005): 

Country: China; 
Approximate length of time foreign governments take to approve adoption 
in country[A]: 10 to 12 months; 
Estimated adoption costs for adoptive parents (per adoption): $15,000 
to $20,000. 

Country: Russia; 
Approximate length of time foreign governments take to approve adoption 
in country[A]: 5 months; 
Estimated adoption costs for adoptive parents (per adoption): $40,000. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Approximate length of time foreign governments take to approve adoption 
in country[A]: 6 to 7 months; 
Estimated adoption costs for adoptive parents (per adoption): $20,000 
to $25,000. 

Country: South Korea; 
Approximate length of time foreign governments take to approve adoption 
in country[A]: 1 year; 
Estimated adoption costs for adoptive parents (per adoption): $18,000 
to $24,000. 

Source: Data provided by State. 

Note: Data is based on testimonial information obtained by State 
Consular Affairs officials reviewing intercountry adoption cases in 
foreign countries. This data provides estimated information on typical 
U.S. intercountry adoption cases. 

[A] According to State officials, this length of time is the 
approximate time spent on U.S. intercountry adoption cases by the 
foreign government and does not include time spent by the U.S. 
government for approval. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Agencies Improved the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process, but 
USCIS Lacks a Formal Quality Assurance Process: 

In 2002, an interagency task force on intercountry adoptions was 
created to examine ways to improve the U.S. intercountry adoption 
process, and USCIS and State implemented most of the priorities that 
the task force identified as necessary for improving the adoption 
process. USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of the 
adoptions process but lacks a structured quality assurance program 
where results are summarized and communicated to senior agency 
officials. 

USCIS and State Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process: 

USCIS and State have taken several measures to improve the intercountry 
adoptions process. The Commissioner of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS)[Footnote 27] made intercountry adoptions a 
priority for the agency in March 2002, after the Commissioner suspended 
orphan visa processing for Cambodia.[Footnote 28] The INS created an 
adoptions task force with State to comprehensively review the existing 
INS structure for handling intercountry adoptions. The task force 
identified several priorities to improve the intercountry adoption 
process, and the agencies have, over the past 3 years, addressed many 
of the priorities by taking the following actions: 

* Improved interagency coordination: The task force suggested that 
coordination needed to continue and that USCIS consider how adoption 
work should be distributed and coordinated between USCIS and State. 
USCIS and State's Bureau of Consular Affairs have established a 
relationship to work together to address and resolve adoption issues. 
For instance, the agencies hold quarterly meetings to coordinate 
implementing changes to regulations, discuss challenges to the process, 
and improve the forms used by officials in the process. In particular, 
USCIS and State officials regularly discuss specific adoption cases and 
issues that arise in overseas posts, as well as regulatory, 
administrative, and policy matters related to intercountry adoptions. 
Moreover, in April 2005, USCIS and State's Bureau of Consular Affairs 
officials met at a USCIS field office to establish a mechanism for 
sharing information on visa processing. 

* Improved efforts to communicate with parents: The adoptions task 
force identified the need for USCIS and State to provide advisory 
notices for prospective adoptive parents. The task force suggested that 
emphasis should be placed on ensuring that parents were consistently 
informed about procedures, as well as prohibitions related to child 
buying in the process, and that parents receive the most current and 
complete information available on issues identified in countries where 
adoptions occur. To improve communications with parents, USCIS and 
State's Office of Children's Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs 
provide information on their Web sites,[Footnote 29] USCIS and State 
officials meet with adoption organizations and parents to discuss 
various issues and USCIS field offices have taken steps to provide 
customer service to parents. For example, USCIS and State Web sites 
provide information on the process in the United States and overseas, 
and the roles of both agencies, and alert parents to potential concerns 
through advisory notices about adoption procedures in other countries. 
USCIS and State's Office of Children's Issues provide outreach to 
parents and the adoption community by presenting information at 
regional and national conferences. In the two domestic USCIS field 
offices we visited, we found that officials had taken several actions 
to communicate with prospective adoptive parents, such as establishing 
procedures to meet prospective parents and providing telephone numbers 
for parents to directly contact the Adoption Adjudication Officer. 

* Developed standard operating procedures: Another priority of the 
adoptions task force was for USCIS to provide consistent guidance for 
its field officers adjudicating orphan petitions by developing standard 
operating procedures on how to determine parents' suitability to adopt 
and a child's orphan status. The task force pointed out that, in some 
cases, an adjudicator may be the only person in the field office that 
handles adoptions and may have a supervisor reviewing their work who 
does not have expertise in adoptions. The task force also reported 
that, even among the best adjudicators, there was little procedural 
consistency in adjudicating adoptions and no centralized guidance from 
headquarters. To address this priority, in 2003, USCIS developed 
standard operating procedures on adoption adjudications and made them 
available to their staff electronically. We reviewed the standard 
operating procedures and found that they described in a very detailed 
manner the process for adjudicating orphan petitions. Furthermore, 
State provides guidance to consular officers on how to process orphan 
visa cases in its Foreign Affairs Manual. 

* Conducted agency training: The task force noted that both USCIS and 
State officials sometimes lacked the training necessary to determine 
orphan status. In response, USCIS developed training materials for its 
domestic and overseas field adjudicators for determining orphan status 
and conducted an intercountry adoptions training course in 2002, which 
some State officials attended. We reviewed the training materials and 
found that they re-emphasized INA statutes for defining orphan status, 
defined the agency's role and responsibilities for adjudicating orphan 
petitions, and provided details for conducting orphan investigations. 
In addition, to assist consular officers in their orphan 
investigations, State offers fraud training to help its officers 
ascertain whether information in documents for determining orphan 
status, such as birth certificates, is false or whether documents have 
been altered or falsified. According to a State official, State 
increased the frequency of the course from twice a year to 8 to 10 
times per year in 2005. 

* Streamlined the intercountry adoption process: The task force 
emphasized that the agency continue to demonstrate its commitment to 
maintaining the intercountry adoption process as a priority. USCIS 
streamlined some of its intercountry adoption procedures as a result. A 
USCIS official acknowledged that the agency is challenged to balance 
the prospective parents' interest in creating their new family as 
quickly as possible with the need to review and process each 
application and the required documents in accordance with U.S. law. To 
address issues relating to timeliness, the agency has instituted a 
policy requiring completion of all immigration related applications 
within 6 months. Between October 2003 and July 2005, the agency has 
processed adoption applications in less than 4 months, on 
average.[Footnote 30] According to USCIS officials, many petitioners 
file an incomplete Advanced Orphan Petition (Form I-600A) or Orphan 
Petition (Form I-600) while they are in the process of completing their 
home study. Regulations allow the petitioner(s) up to 12 months to 
submit supportive documentation. The agency strives to process 
completed applications within 30 days of receiving all required 
documentation, according to USCIS officials. 

In addition, in November 2003, USCIS made efforts to eliminate its 
backlog of U.S. citizenship certificates by centralizing the process. 
USCIS advised its field offices that, if they needed assistance with 
their backlog, to send these cases to a central location for 
processing. According to a USCIS official, from November through 
December 2003, this central office processed 671 of the 700 backlogged 
cases--the remaining cases were either denied or returned to the field 
office for additional follow-up. In addition, to streamline and 
simplify the issuance of Certificates of Citizenship for adopted 
children who receive IR-3 visas and have their adoption finalized 
overseas, USCIS created the IR-3 Entrant Program in January 2004. The 
program eliminates the application and fee for citizenship certificates 
for about 70 percent of children adopted by U.S. citizens. A USCIS 
official noted that the agency has consistently met its goal to provide 
certificates within 45 days after the family has entered the United 
States. 

Further, in the intercountry adoption process, a system of checks and 
balances has developed that allows State, in the visa issuance phase, 
to review USCIS paperwork before issuing the visa to the child. 
Additionally, as a part of the streamlined process for issuing the 
citizenship certificates to adopted children, USCIS reviews IR-3 
immigrant visa packages to verify that the child acquired automatic 
U.S. citizenship upon admission to the United States as required under 
the INA. Since April 2005, USCIS and State have established procedures 
to specifically address issues in visa classification decisions. 

USCIS Has Taken Measures to Review the Quality of the Adoptions 
Process, but a Structured Quality Assurance Program Is Not in Place: 

The adoptions task force reported that USCIS should adopt a quality 
assurance program for orphan adjudications. Although USCIS has taken 
measures to review the quality of the adoptions process, we found that 
USCIS has not developed a formal quality assurance process, similar to 
the programs used in other areas of the agency. The activities of the 
quality assurance program could include such procedures as the review 
of random cases adjudicated by field officers to determine whether they 
are following agency guidance and procedures, as well as the evaluation 
of statistics to determine average processing times of orphan petitions 
by field offices. 

The task force reported that, even among the best officers, there was 
little procedural or substantive consistency in approach or a 
centralized source of guidance from headquarters. In 2003, USCIS 
developed standard operating procedures that detailed a step by step 
approach for adjudicating orphan petitions with the goal of improved 
consistency among its adjudications, but the agency has not provided 
training to adjudicating officers on these new procedures. The task 
force also reported that problems in adjudicating orphan petitions can 
be traced to the fact that individuals train their successors as best 
as they can, but there is no routine mechanism for obtaining feedback 
on written work from someone with specialized adoption expertise. In 
the field offices we visited, we found that the adjudicators had 
learned the process for adjudicating adoption petitions mostly through 
on-the-job training and mentoring. USCIS held intercountry adoptions 
training in 2002 as a result of the task force's suggestion; however, 
not all adjudicators who process adoption cases attended the training. 
A USCIS official stated that the agency plans to hold similar training 
in fiscal year 2006, but no dates have been set. 

In January 2004, as part of the Child Citizenship Act Program, the 
USCIS Buffalo office began its review of adoption documents for 
children who received IR-3 visas to help ensure the accuracy and 
completeness of the information relating to the adoption process. This 
review process accounts for about 70 percent of the adoption cases, 
with the remaining 30 percent not included. The USCIS Buffalo office 
has an informal process for addressing individual cases by sending e- 
mails to relevant officials at USCIS and State. We reviewed several of 
the e-mails sent by the USCIS Buffalo office, which identified issues 
such as insufficient documentation, misclassifications of visas, and 
inconsistent interpretation of INA regulations. While USCIS Buffalo's 
review process has merits, the results of the review are not summarized 
and formally reported to either senior USCIS or State officials. 
Moreover, USCIS does not have a structured approach that would allow 
the agencies to assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process 
over time, ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware 
of the results, and identify opportunities where additional training or 
guidance may be warranted. 

USCIS and State Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Safeguards to the 
Process in Foreign Environments, but USCIS Does Not Systematically 
Document Incidents of Potential Abuses: 

The conditions in foreign environments can contribute to potential 
abuses in the intercountry adoptions process. USCIS and State have 
taken steps to increase safeguards and mitigate the potential for 
fraudulent adoptions, though USCIS has not formally and systematically 
documented specific problematic incidents to help USCIS adjudicators 
better understand the potential pitfalls in some intercountry 
adoptions. 

Factors in Some Foreign Countries May Contribute to Abuses in U.S. 
Intercountry Adoptions: 

While the U.S. immigration law covering intercountry adoptions is 
designed to ensure that adopting parents are suitable and fit to 
provide proper care of the child and that the foreign-born child is an 
orphan, conditions in some countries--such as corruption and the lack 
of a legal framework over intercountry adoptions--may lead to abuses in 
the intercountry adoption process. According to the United Nations 
Children's Fund (UNICEF),[Footnote 31] such abuses are more likely to 
occur in countries where legislative provisions are nonexistent, 
inadequate, or plagued with gaps and loopholes. UNICEF research also 
identified that risk for abuses significantly increased when government 
entities that oversee the adoption process are absent, insufficient, or 
when the prospective parents act through intermediaries that may not be 
licensed. For example, State has received a growing number of 
complaints concerning adoption facilitators operating in various 
countries. Licensing of agents and facilitators is done in accordance 
with local law. However, not all foreign governments require that 
agents and facilitators be licensed. Accordingly, it can be difficult 
to hold facilitators accountable for fraud, malfeasance, or other bad 
practices in general. 

According to USCIS, State, and UNICEF, there have been some known cases 
of abuse in intercountry adoptions, which include: 

* abducting children; 

* exchanging a child for financial or material rewards to the birth 
family, or "child buying"; 

* deliberately providing misleading information to birth parents to 
obtain their consent; 

* providing false information to prospective adopters; 

* falsifying documents; and: 

* obtaining favorable adoption decisions from corrupt local or central 
government officials. 

Past difficulties with intercountry adoptions in foreign countries, 
most notably in Cambodia, illustrate the potential effect of high-risk 
adoption environments. The United States issued a suspension on 
intercountry adoptions from Cambodia in December 2001 after receiving 
complaints from nongovernmental organizations in Cambodia that 
criminals were involved in "baby buying" for adoptions. From 1997 to 
2001, the conspirators operated a scheme to defraud U.S. citizens who 
adopted some 700 children from Cambodia. The conspirators received 
approximately $8 million dollars from adoptive parents in the United 
States. The conspiracy involved assorted crimes, including alien 
smuggling, visa fraud, and money laundering, and included schemes such 
as the use of baby buyers obtaining children from birth parents by 
informing the birth parents that they may have their child back at any 
time, then obtaining false Cambodian passports to enable the children 
to leave the country. In 2004, after a DHS investigation, a U.S. 
adoption facilitator pled guilty to conspiracy to commit visa fraud and 
conspiracy to launder money. 

The United States has also noted ongoing concerns with intercountry 
adoptions in certain countries, as of the date of this report. These 
countries include Guatemala, where a large number of U.S. adopted 
children originate from, as well as Nepal, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. 
In Guatemala, USCIS and State noted on their Web sites that the use of 
a false birth mother to release her child is the usual method chosen by 
unscrupulous operators to create a paper trail for an illegally 
obtained child. USCIS and State officials acknowledged the known 
problems in Guatemala of birth mothers who are paid by private adoption 
attorneys to relinquish their children for adoption. According to 
State, problematic cases may further be complicated by high incidence 
of corruption and civil document fraud in Guatemala. In Nepal, visa 
fraud is a significant problem facing potential adoptive parents, 
according to State's Web site. State also emphasized that document and 
identity fraud related to adoptions are serious concerns in Nigeria, 
and a high rate of adoption fraud has been uncovered in Sierra Leone. 

Both Agencies Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Intercountry Adoption 
Safeguards in Foreign Countries, but USCIS Has Not Formally and 
Systematically Documented Incidents of Potential Abuses: 

USCIS and State have taken various steps to strengthen safeguards 
against abuses associated with adoptions from foreign countries. USCIS 
and State's Office of Children's Issues coordinate to provide publicly 
available information to alert prospective adoptive parents to country- 
specific adoption processes and serious problems that may develop or 
already exist in foreign adoption processes State officials also hold 
diplomatic discussions with foreign countries regarding intercountry 
adoptions. Through discussions between the United States and Vietnam, 
for example, intercountry adoptions, which had been suspended, resumed 
after the two countries signed an agreement of cooperation in June 
2005. In addition, USCIS has established written guidance for ways to 
identify fraud in intercountry adoption cases. The guidance provides 
that USCIS officers consider specific fraud indicators, such as 
documentary deficiencies and delays in registering birth certificates. 
Furthermore, State has provided fraud prevention management training to 
State consular officers, and USCIS officials said that all USCIS 
officers receive training, which includes an antifraud segment, when 
hired. 

USCIS and State have established procedures for determining the orphan 
status of the child based on the conditions that exist in the country 
relating to the intercountry adoption process. These procedures may add 
to the length of time for the adoption process. For example, in 
countries where the adoption process is clear and transparent, and when 
officers deal with adoption agencies with high standards, USCIS allows 
the field investigation to be completed through a documentary review. 
In some instances, however, deficiencies or inconsistencies in the 
documentation presented will require in-depth field investigations. In 
certain countries, these investigations can include additional steps, 
such as interviews with the birth mother, DNA testing when necessary 
and feasible, and interviews with adoption entities such as 
facilitators, orphanage directors, and local officials. In Guatemala, 
for example, USCIS requires DNA testing in all cases where the child is 
released by an identified birth mother due to concerns over the use of 
false birth mothers to release illegally obtained children. In Nigeria, 
where document and identity fraud related to adoptions are serious 
concerns, all adoptions are required to undergo full field 
investigations to verify the authenticity of the information provided 
in the adoption decrees and U.S. orphan petitions. These added steps in 
the process may contribute to a lengthier completion time for 
intercountry adoptions, but may also help the U.S. government in 
ensuring the legitimacy of information provided on the adopted child 
and in detecting fraud. 

Both USCIS and State publicize general knowledge of the risk 
environment in foreign countries. However, while State has documented 
specific concerns via cable communication, USCIS has not established a 
procedure to systematically document instances of individual 
problematic situations identified through its intercountry adoption 
work in foreign countries, including its staff's knowledge of 
unscrupulous adoption attorneys and facilitators, as well as 
disreputable orphanages and adoption agencies. Although USCIS officials 
informed us that they discuss the risk environment in foreign countries 
with overseas staff on a periodic and informal basis, agency officials' 
knowledge of specific incidents of concern may be better captured in a 
systematically documented method. In Guatemala, for example, USCIS 
staff informed us of instances where facilitators may have provided 
substantial funds to birth mothers who have relinquished their children 
for adoption. A USCIS official had also banned specific adoption 
attorneys in Guatemala from submitting intercountry adoption cases due 
to the USCIS official's suspicions of the attorneys' fraudulent 
practices. This information, however, is communicated anecdotally to 
other USCIS officials without being specifically and systematically 
documented. In addition, while USCIS provides information for State's 
publicly available notices documenting country conditions, individual 
and detailed accounts of concern are not systematically captured. USCIS 
officials also noted that they have access to cables prepared by State 
officials that discuss concerns with intercountry adoptions in foreign 
countries. Contents in State's documented cables range from 
documentation of general risks to intercountry adoptions in foreign 
countries to findings during orphan investigations in specific adoption 
cases. 

GAO internal control standards specify that agencies consider adequate 
mechanisms to identify risks arising from external factors, including 
careful considerations of the risks resulting from interactions with 
other federal entities and parties outside the government. Our 
standards also note that agency management should establish a formal 
process to analyze these risks. Documentation by USCIS staff of 
specific problematic incidents would provide a systematic method to 
retain institutional knowledge, analyze trends in the occurrence of 
these problems, and share critical information. 

United States and Some U.S. Top Sending Countries Have Not Ratified 
Multilateral Convention That Establishes Minimum Intercountry Adoption 
Standards: 

The Hague Convention, which governs intercountry adoptions, establishes 
minimum standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk 
associated with foreign governments' adoption processes. The United 
States has signed the Convention and taken key steps toward 
implementation but has not yet formally ratified it, while some U.S. 
top sending countries have also not ratified the Convention.[Footnote 
32] 

Hague Convention Establishes Minimum Standards for Intercountry 
Adoptions: 

The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in 
Respect of Intercountry Adoptions is designed to help alleviate some of 
the risks associated with the adoption process by establishing 
international minimum standards that sending and receiving countries 
must abide by.[Footnote 33] In particular, the objectives of the 
Convention are (1) to establish safeguards to ensure that intercountry 
adoptions take place in the best interests of the child and with 
respect for his or her fundamental rights as recognized in 
international law; (2) to establish a system of cooperation among 
Contracting States to ensure that those safeguards are respected and 
thereby prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children; and 
(3) to secure the recognition in Contracting States of adoptions made 
in accordance with the Convention. Standards of the Convention will 
only be applicable for intercountry adoptions in which both the sending 
and receiving country have ratified the Convention. 

More specifically, the Convention's safeguards include the required 
designation of a Central Authority in each country to implement 
Convention procedures, as well as requirements regarding prospective 
parents, adoptable children, and other involved entities. These Central 
Authorities must coordinate with each other, provide evaluation reports 
on their country's adoption experiences to other countries, and take 
the appropriate measures to prevent improper financial gain from an 
intercountry adoption, among other responsibilities. Additionally, 
under a Hague adoption, a prospective adoptive parent must apply for an 
adoption through the sending country's Central Authority. To meet these 
requirements, the sending country must establish that a child is 
eligible for adoption by ensuring that adoption is in the best interest 
of the child and that appropriate counseling and consents, not induced 
by payment, have been provided, while the receiving country must 
determine that the prospective parents are eligible and suitable to 
adopt. Moreover, the Convention requires the receiving country to 
ensure that the child will be authorized to enter and permanently 
reside in the country before the adoption takes place, though this is 
not a prerequisite to parent-child contact. Under the Convention, the 
Central Authority may delegate certain functions to a public authority 
or an accredited body, as long as this body pursues only nonprofit 
objectives, is staffed by qualified persons, and is subject to 
supervision. The Convention also permits many Central Authority 
functions to be performed by other bodies or persons who meet certain 
ethical, training, and experience standards.[Footnote 34] 

Although the Convention establishes minimum standards, it does not 
establish formal means to determine whether countries are complying 
with them. The United States has monitoring mechanisms, outlined in the 
IAA,[Footnote 35] to ensure it adheres to the standards of the 
Convention. However, the Convention does not include mechanisms to 
determine whether other countries are doing so as well. For example, 
although the Convention requires the sending countries to prepare a 
report for each child, it is up to the sending country to ensure that 
its report is factual. 

United States and Some Top Sending Countries Have Yet to Ratify the 
Convention: 

Although State has taken some key steps to implement the Convention, 
several remain. The United States signed the Convention in 1994. In 
2000, the Senate gave its advice and consent, but the United States 
will not formally ratify the Convention until it is able to carry out 
the obligations required of it by the Convention. That same year, the 
United States passed the implementing legislation, the IAA, which 
established State as the U.S. Central Authority for intercountry 
adoptions. Following passage of the legislation, State has taken 
several steps to prepare for implementation, including drafting and 
issuing regulations for comment as required by IAA,[Footnote 36] hiring 
staff to carry out some of the responsibilities of the Convention, and 
requesting applications for accrediting entities, which under IAA are 
responsible for accrediting adoption service providers. However, some 
key steps remain, which include finalizing regulations, deploying case 
registry software to track adoption cases,[Footnote 37] and signing 
agreements with accredited entities. Implementation of the Convention 
is one of State's highest priorities, according to State officials. 
Figure 5 provides a detailed time line of the United States' 
implementation of the Convention. 

Figure 5: Hague Implementation Time Line by Fiscal Year: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

State officials said the implementation of the Convention is a long- 
term project and attributed its lengthiness to several challenges. 
First, IAA required that State consider the standards or procedures 
developed or proposed by the adoption community before issuing 
regulations.[Footnote 38] Once regulations were issued to the public 
for comment, State received about 1,500 comments from more than 200 
entities expressing a wide range of views, some calling for more 
stringent standards and others for less stringent. State revised the 
regulations, including responses to comments, and sent them to Office 
of Management and Budget. Second, State is further challenged in 
drafting agreements with accrediting entities because such entities 
could be either state licensing bodies or nonprofits, both of which 
entail a variety of different restrictions, such as state laws. 
Finally, State must complete some steps in sequential order. For 
example, agreements with accrediting entities can not be signed until 
the regulations are finalized. Further, although State's target date 
for implementation is fiscal year 2007, agency officials stated that 
they could not predict how long it will take accrediting entities to 
approve adoption service agencies. According to officials, State will 
have completed its work needed to implement the Convention by the end 
of 2005, at which time the adoption service providers will have to 
apply for accreditation. In addition, USCIS must revise regulations to 
implement the Convention, and, according to USCIS, they are currently 
in the process of making the revisions. 

Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about 39 percent of 
all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have ratified the 
Convention.[Footnote 39] Three out of four top sending countries for 
U.S. intercountry adoptions--Guatemala, Russia, and South Korea--have 
not ratified the Convention. In September 2005, China, the top sending 
country of U.S. adoptions, ratified the Convention. State officials 
said that Russia is working toward ratification of the Convention. 
Guatemala acceded to the Convention in 2002, but, in 2003, the 
Guatemalan court ruled the accession to be unconstitutional based on 
technicalities. South Korea has not signed the Convention. See appendix 
IV for the countries that have implemented the Convention, as well as 
the total number of U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004 
from these countries, as well as the top four sending countries. 

Following implementation of the Convention, the United States plans to 
continue adoptions with non-Hague Convention countries, according to 
State officials. However, State officials told us that prior to U.S. 
implementation of the Convention, other Hague Convention countries 
could potentially suspend adoptions with the United States. For 
example, Costa Rica announced the suspension of non-Hague adoptions in 
2003, though the country has continued to allow some adoptions by U.S. 
citizens, according to State officials. 

Conclusions: 

With more and more U.S. citizens expanding their families by adopting 
children who live in other countries, it is important for the U.S. 
government to have procedures in place that provide prospective parents 
with transparent and accessible information on adoptions, coordination 
between the two primary agencies responsible for implementing U.S. 
immigration law on intercountry adoptions, and mechanisms to evaluate 
the suitability of prospective parents and to determine the child's 
status as an orphan and eligibility to immigrate to the United States. 
The United States has such procedures in place, and the designated 
agencies have worked to improve them. While U.S. adoptive parents 
desire a smooth and expedited adoption process, agency officials are 
challenged to balance the importance of prioritizing and expediting 
intercountry adoption cases with the need to conduct thorough 
investigations to ensure the legitimacy of each adoption. 

In recent years, State and USCIS have taken measures to enhance the 
intercountry adoption process. However, the development of an 
intercountry adoptions quality assurance program would help to ensure 
that U.S. intercountry adoption procedures are consistently followed 
domestically and worldwide. Moreover, because foreign governments play 
a prominent role in U.S. intercountry adoptions, the U.S. government is 
limited in its ability to mitigate against abuses that take place 
abroad. Although the U.S. government has taken measures to address some 
risks to intercountry adoptions, a systematic documentation of such 
incidents in foreign countries would allow for a formal mechanism for 
retaining and sharing specific information among staff working on 
adoption cases. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following 
actions working with the Director of USCIS to: 

* formalize its quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can 
assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process over time, 
ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware of the 
outcomes of the quality assurance process, and identify opportunities 
where additional training or guidance may be warranted; and: 

* consider establishing a formal and systematic approach to document 
specific incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions that it has 
identified in foreign countries to retain institutional knowledge and 
analyze trends of individuals or organizations involved in improper 
activities. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

The Departments of Homeland Security and State provided written 
comments on a draft of this report (see apps. V and VI). GAO 
incorporated technical comments from both agencies as appropriate. Both 
DHS and State generally agreed with the report draft's observations and 
conclusions. DHS agreed with our two recommendations for USCIS to 
formalize its quality assurance mechanisms and for USCIS to consider 
establishing a formal and systematic approach to document specific 
incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions identified in foreign 
countries. DHS also commented that the report accurately describes the 
process and responsibilities of both agencies in the intercountry 
adoption process. DHS noted that both agencies have improved 
interagency coordination and efforts to communicate with parents, 
developed standard operations procedures, conducted training, and 
streamlined the process. 

State commented that the department and USCIS have established 
procedures that provide prospective adoptive parents with transparent 
and accessible information, ensure coordination between their distinct 
supportive roles, and meet the requirements of U.S. law. State also 
noted that the report outlines the separate responsibilities of each 
agency and recognizes the steps that both agencies have taken to ensure 
that intercountry adoptions take place within the context of strong 
safeguards. State replied that it is deeply concerned about the welfare 
of children around the world and regards the Hague Convention as an 
important means of promoting strong safeguards and ensuring that 
intercountry adoption remains a viable option for children around the 
world who seek permanent family placements. The department also 
discussed its action on implementing the Hague Convention and indicated 
that it plans to complete the tasks necessary to ratify the Convention 
in 2005 and to enable adoption service providers to be accredited in 
time for the United States to be able to ratify the Convention in 2007. 
Also, State provided additional information regarding its outreach 
efforts to the adoption community that we added to the report and 
provided supplementary information on Department of State Actions on 
Intercountry Adoptions in Selected Countries. 

We will send copies of this report to appropriate Members of Congress, 
the Secretaries of the Departments of Homeland Security and State, and 
the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. We also will 
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report 
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4128 or [Hyperlink, fordj@gao.gov]. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Jess T. Ford: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To describe the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we met with 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) and Department of State (State) officials in 
Washington, D.C., with responsibilities for managing intercountry 
adoptions cases. Specifically, we met with officials in USCIS' Offices 
of Field Operations and International Operations, and State's Bureau of 
Consular Affairs' Offices of Children's Issues and Visa Services. We 
reviewed documents on U.S. intercountry adoptions, including 
information on USCIS and State Web sites, which outlined specific 
procedures for prospective adoptive parents to complete during the 
intercountry adoption process, as well as information on the child's 
eligibility for citizenship. Furthermore, we reported on the varying 
intercountry adoption completion times and costs incurred by adoptive 
parents in the top four sending countries based on discussions with 
officials from State's Office of Children's Issues, who obtained this 
information from State's Bureau of Consular Affairs officers handling 
intercountry adoption cases in the four overseas locations. These 
Bureau of Consular Affairs officers provided approximate time frames 
based on their experiences in reviewing intercountry adoption cases. We 
did not test the reliability of this data. 

To assess the U.S. government agencies' efforts to manage the 
intercountry adoption process, we interviewed USCIS and State officials 
in Washington, D.C. We reviewed a USCIS task force report from June 
2002, which assessed the U.S. intercountry adoption process and 
identified areas for improvements. We discussed actions taken to 
address these issues with USCIS officials. We further reviewed USCIS 
and State documents to understand their procedures for handling 
intercountry adoptions cases and their management of the process. These 
documents include USCIS Standard Operating Procedures and Adjudicator's 
Field Manual, as well as State's Foreign Affairs Manual. Additionally, 
we reviewed USCIS and State's caseload data, documentation of 
communication and coordination between the two agencies, as well as 
training materials provided to USCIS and State officials related to 
intercountry adoptions. The estimate of the time that USCIS officials 
took to process intercountry adoption applications relies on their 
Performance Analysis System (PAS). GAO tested the reliability of the 
PAS data and found that it was sufficiently reliable at the aggregate 
level to identify overall trends. We also visited USCIS offices in New 
York and Los Angeles to see how USCIS implements domestic procedures 
related to intercountry adoptions. Both of these offices ranked in the 
top 20 percent of domestic offices for the number of adoption cases 
received in fiscal year 2004 and demonstrate geographic diversity. 
Additionally, we visited Guatemala City, Guatemala, and Moscow, Russia, 
to see how USCIS and State implement intercountry adoption procedures 
overseas. Our reasons for selecting those two countries are discussed 
below. Furthermore, we contacted U.S. adoption organizations and 
agencies to understand their roles, as well as some adoptive parents 
who belonged to national adoptive parent support groups and were 
willing to respond to us, to hear about their experiences with the U.S. 
intercountry adoption process. 

To understand the intercountry adoption process and the adoption 
environment in overseas locations, we visited Guatemala City and 
Moscow; we selected these locations for various reasons. Both countries 
were consistently ranked among the top five sending countries for U.S. 
intercountry adoptions from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 2004. In 
Guatemala City, USCIS officials adjudicate all orphan petitions to 
determine the eligibility of the adopted children while State officials 
issue visas to the adopted children. In contrast, State officials with 
designated responsibility in Moscow approve the eligibility of the 
adopted children and issue their visas. In addition, USCIS and State 
officials noted concerns with intercountry adoptions abuses in 
Guatemala, which research conducted for United Nations Children's Fund 
(UNICEF) corroborated. In both countries, we interviewed USCIS and 
State Bureau of Consular Affairs officials managing the U.S. 
intercountry adoption process. We also met with foreign government 
officials and private adoption facilitators and visited orphanages to 
learn about their respective roles in the adoption process and their 
views on the risks associated with intercountry adoptions in Guatemala 
and Russia. The information on foreign law in this report does not 
reflect our independent legal analysis, but is based on interviews and 
secondary sources. 

To describe the Hague Convention and the statuses of U.S. and top 
sending countries' implementation of the Convention, we analyzed the 
text of the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation 
in Respect of Intercountry Adoption to identify the purpose and 
standards of the Convention. We also analyzed the U.S. Intercountry 
Adoption Act of 2000, which provides for the implementation of the 
Convention by the United States. We also reviewed State's Web sites and 
documents regarding the status of its implementation of the Convention, 
including comments on draft regulations and State's Fiscal Year 2006 
Performance Summary. In addition, we interviewed USCIS and State 
officials to determine the status of the U.S. implementation of the 
Convention. Finally, we obtained data on other countries' ratification 
of the Convention from the Web site of The Hague Conference on Private 
International Law, which tracks the statuses of countries that have 
signed and ratified the Convention. To verify that this data on the Web 
site was current, we interviewed an official from the member of the 
permanent bureau of the Convention. Furthermore, we discussed the 
implementation statuses of the Convention in their own countries with 
Guatemalan and Russian government officials. 

We performed our work from February to October 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Country, 
Fiscal Year 2004: 

Sending country: Afghanistan; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Albania; 
Number of adoptions: 9. 

Sending country: Algeria; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Armenia; 
Number of adoptions: 31. 

Sending country: Azerbaijan; 
Number of adoptions: 26. 

Sending country: Bangladesh; 
Number of adoptions: 9. 

Sending country: Barbados; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Belarus; 
Number of adoptions: 202. 

Sending country: Belize; 
Number of adoptions: 13. 

Sending country: Benin; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Bolivia; 
Number of adoptions: 5. 

Sending country: Bosnia-Herzegovina; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Brazil; 
Number of adoptions: 69. 

Sending country: Bulgaria; 
Number of adoptions: 110. 

Sending country: Burma; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Burundi; 
Number of adoptions: 3. 

Sending country: Cameroon; 
Number of adoptions: 6. 

Sending country: Canada; 
Number of adoptions: 6. 

Sending country: Cape Verde; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Central African Republic; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Chile; 
Number of adoptions: 4. 

Sending country: China--mainland born; 
Number of adoptions: 7,044. 

Sending country: China--Taiwan born; 
Number of adoptions: 109. 

Sending country: Colombia; 
Number of adoptions: 287. 

Sending country: Congo, Democratic Republic of the; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Costa Rica; 
Number of adoptions: 10. 

Sending country: Croatia; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Czech Republic; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Djibouti; 
Number of adoptions: 3. 

Sending country: Dominica; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Dominican Republic; 
Number of adoptions: 18. 

Sending country: Ecuador; 
Number of adoptions: 28. 

Sending country: El Salvador; 
Number of adoptions: 16. 

Sending country: Eritrea; 
Number of adoptions: 6. 

Sending country: Estonia; 
Number of adoptions: 13. 

Sending country: Ethiopia; 
Number of adoptions: 289. 

Sending country: Fiji; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Georgia; 
Number of adoptions: 24. 

Sending country: Germany; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Ghana; 
Number of adoptions: 13. 

Sending country: Great Britain and Northern Ireland; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Greece; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Guatemala; 
Number of adoptions: 3,264. 

Sending country: Guyana; 
Number of adoptions: 36. 

Sending country: Haiti; 
Number of adoptions: 356. 

Sending country: Honduras; 
Number of adoptions: 8. 

Sending country: Hong Kong S.A.R; 
Number of adoptions: 15. 

Sending country: Hungary; 
Number of adoptions: 8. 

Sending country: India; 
Number of adoptions: 406. 

Sending country: Indonesia; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Iran; 
Number of adoptions: 6. 

Sending country: Ireland; 
Number of adoptions: 3. 

Sending country: Jamaica; 
Number of adoptions: 51. 

Sending country: Japan; 
Number of adoptions: 45. 

Sending country: Jordan; 
Number of adoptions: 4. 

Sending country: Kazakhstan; 
Number of adoptions: 826. 

Sending country: Kenya; 
Number of adoptions: 21. 

Sending country: Korea, South; 
Number of adoptions: 1,716. 

Sending country: Kyrgyzstan; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Laos; 
Number of adoptions: 4. 

Sending country: Latvia; 
Number of adoptions: 15. 

Sending country: Lebanon; 
Number of adoptions: 14. 

Sending country: Lesotho; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Liberia; 
Number of adoptions: 86. 

Sending country: Lithuania; 
Number of adoptions: 29. 

Sending country: Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Rep. of; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Madagascar; 
Number of adoptions: 4. 

Sending country: Malaysia; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Mali; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Marshall Islands, Republic of the; 
Number of adoptions: 8. 

Sending country: Mexico; 
Number of adoptions: 89. 

Sending country: Moldova; 
Number of adoptions: 32. 

Sending country: Mongolia; 
Number of adoptions: 23. 

Sending country: Morocco; 
Number of adoptions: 7. 

Sending country: Mozambique; 
Number of adoptions: 3. 

Sending country: Nepal; 
Number of adoptions: 73. 

Sending country: Nicaragua; 
Number of adoptions: 11. 

Sending country: Nigeria; 
Number of adoptions: 71. 

Sending country: Pakistan; 
Number of adoptions: 32. 

Sending country: Panama; 
Number of adoptions: 6. 

Sending country: Peru; 
Number of adoptions: 21. 

Sending country: Philippines; 
Number of adoptions: 196. 

Sending country: Poland; 
Number of adoptions: 102. 

Sending country: Portugal; 
Number of adoptions: 4. 

Sending country: Romania; 
Number of adoptions: 57. 

Sending country: Russia; 
Number of adoptions: 5,865. 

Sending country: Rwanda; 
Number of adoptions: 3. 

Sending country: Saint Lucia; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Samoa; 
Number of adoptions: 34. 

Sending country: Senegal; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Serbia and Montenegro; 
Number of adoptions: 2. 

Sending country: Seychelles; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Sierra Leone; 
Number of adoptions: 36. 

Sending country: Singapore; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Slovakia; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Somalia; 
Number of adoptions: 4. 

Sending country: South Africa; 
Number of adoptions: 8. 

Sending country: Sri Lanka; 
Number of adoptions: 13. 

Sending country: Swaziland; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Syria; 
Number of adoptions: 3. 

Sending country: Tajikistan; 
Number of adoptions: 6. 

Sending country: Tanzania; 
Number of adoptions: 4. 

Sending country: Thailand; 
Number of adoptions: 69. 

Sending country: Togo; 
Number of adoptions: 1. 

Sending country: Tonga; 
Number of adoptions: 4. 

Sending country: Trinidad and Tobago; 
Number of adoptions: 8. 

Sending country: Turkey; 
Number of adoptions: 5. 

Sending country: Uganda; 
Number of adoptions: 17. 

Sending country: Ukraine; 
Number of adoptions: 723. 

Sending country: Uzbekistan; 
Number of adoptions: 3. 

Sending country: Vietnam; 
Number of adoptions: 21. 

Sending country: Zambia; 
Number of adoptions: 10. 

Sending country: Total; 
Number of adoptions: 22,884. 

Source: State. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: List of USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices: 

City: Bangkok; 
Country: Thailand; 
Office type: District Office. 

City: Beijing; 
Country: China; 
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office. 

City: Guangzhou; 
Country: China; 
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office. 

City: Ho Chi Minh City; 
Country: Vietnam; 
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office. 

City: Hong Kong; 
Country: China; 
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office. 

City: Manila; 
Country: Philippines; 
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office. 

City: Seoul; 
Country: Korea; 
Office type: Sub Office under Bangkok District Office. 

City: Mexico City; 
Country: Mexico; 
Office type: District Office. 

City: Ciudad Juarez; 
Country: Mexico; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Guatemala City; 
Country: Guatemala; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Havana; 
Country: Cuba; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Kingston; 
Country: Jamaica; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Lima; 
Country: Peru; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Monterrey; 
Country: Mexico; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Panama City; 
Country: Panama; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Port-au-Prince; 
Country: Haiti; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: San Salvador; 
Country: El Salvador; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Santo Domingo; 
Country: Dominican Republic; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Tegucigalpa; 
Country: Honduras; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Tijuana; 
Country: Mexico; 
Office type: Sub Office under Mexico City District Office. 

City: Rome; 
Country: Italy; 
Office type: District Office. 

City: Accra; 
Country: Ghana; 
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office. 

City: Athens; 
Country: Greece; 
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office. 

City: Frankfurt; 
Country: Germany; 
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office. 

City: Islamabad; 
Country: Pakistan; 
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office. 

City: Johannesburg; 
Country: South Africa; 
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office. 

City: London; 
Country: England; 
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office. 

City: Moscow[A]; 
Country: Russia; 
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office. 

City: Nairobi; 
Country: Kenya; 
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office. 

City: New Delhi; 
Country: India; 
Office type: Sub Office under Rome District Office. 

Source: USCIS data. 

[A] Although USCIS has a Sub Office in Moscow, Russia, USCIS officials 
in Moscow do not handle U.S. intercountry adoption cases. Instead, 
State's consular officers approve these cases in Moscow. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. Intercountry 
Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004: 

Figure 6: World Map of Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. 
Intercountry Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

October 14, 2005: 

Mr. Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Ford: 

RE: Draft Report GAO-05-996, Foreign Affairs: Agencies Have Improved 
the Inter-Country Adoption Process But Further Enhancements Are Needed 
(GAO Job Code 320335): 

The Department of Homeland Security appreciates the opportunity to 
review and comment on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) 
draft report. The report accurately describes the process and the 
responsibilities' of both the United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) and Department of State. We appreciate the 
acknowledgment of the improvements both agencies have made in the inter-
country adoption process. As the report states, both agencies have 
improved interagency coordination, improved efforts to communicate with 
parents, developed standard operating procedures, conducted agency 
training and streamlined the process. We believe these efforts have 
made the process more transparent to adoptive parents and agencies 
involved in adoption processing, and at the same time have improved the 
integrity of the inter-country adoption process. 

We generally agree with the two recommendations made in the report. To 
enhance the process the GAO recommended that USCIS formalize its 
quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can assess the quality 
of the inter-country adoption process over time, ensure that senior 
officials from USCIS and State are aware of the outcomes of the quality 
assurance process, and identify opportunities where additional training 
or guidance may be warranted. 

Quality assurance mechanisms are in place but could be more formalized. 
USCIS established the Certificate of Citizenship Act Project located at 
its Buffalo District as a result of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. 
Once a child with a full and complete adoption overseas has been 
admitted to the United States, all documentation presented at the port- 
of-entry is forwarded to the Buffalo District. The purpose of this 
project is to produce documentation identifying the adopted child as a 
United States citizen. In addition to providing this documentation, the 
project staff also conduct a post adoption audit. USCIS officers review 
all documentation prepared by both USCIS and State for accuracy and 
completeness of the information relating to the adoption. If questions 
arise regarding the documentation presented, those questions are routed 
to the approving office through USCIS headquarters. If questions arise 
concerning the issuance of the immigrant visa, those questions are 
routed to the Embassy through State. After review of over 20,000 cases, 
this post-adoption audit reported that errors occurred in less than I 
percent of all reviewed cases. Follow up is conducted by e-mail between 
the Buffalo Office, USCIS Headquarters and State. 

USCIS will work with State to develop a process that will allow both 
agencies to comprehensively look at the results of this post audit 
quality assurance program. USCIS will also work with State to become 
more familiar with any quality assurance program it administers. 

The GAO also recommended that USCIS consider establishing a formal and 
systematic approach to document specific incidents of problems in inter-
country adoptions that it has identified in foreign countries to retain 
institutional knowledge and analyze trends of individuals involved in 
improper activities. The report indicates that State currently 
documents these incidents through the cable process. USCIS officers 
will be reminded of their ability to raise issues of importance by 
using the State Department cable system. This process is not limited to 
State employees, but is used by USCIS employees also. USCIS officers 
overseas will be advised of the opportunity to document specific 
incidents of problems by utilizing the State Department cabling system. 
That way, there will be one source of information for both State 
Department and USCIS officers. 

The report also explains the time frames it takes to complete the inter-
country adoption process. In the section titled "Phase II-Child's 
Status as an Orphan is Determined," the draft report says "According to 
USCIS, it is the agency's goal to process the I-600 Form [Petition to 
Classify the Orphan as an Immediate Relative] within 6 months." This 
statement comes from the USCIS backlog reduction plan, which indicates 
it is the agency's goal to process all forms within a maximum of six 
months. Forms I-600 are generally processed in a shorter timeframe. 
Although the GAO explains the factors that contribute to the time 
frames involved in the process, in order to fully appreciate the 
timeframe of inter-country adoptions, it is important to place them in 
the context of the timeframe for domestic adoptions, which generally 
take as long as or longer than inter-country adoptions. On average, 
intrastate adoptions take 36 months to complete and interstate 
adoptions take an average of 43 months. Similar to inter-country 
adoption timeframes, the length of time that a domestic adoption may 
take varies depending on the program, the State, and the criteria that 
the prospective adopting parent(s) choose. 

We are providing technical comments to your office under separate 
cover. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Steven Pecinovsky: 
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer: 
Washington, D. C. 20520: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

OCT 12 2005: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS: Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process But 
Further Enhancements are Needed," GAO Job Code 320335. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Scott Boswell, Citizen Services Specialist, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 
at (202) 736-9098. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Sid Kaplan (Acting): 

cc: GAO - Victoria Lin; 
CA - Maura Harty; 
State/OIG - Mark Duda: 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process but Further 
Enhancements are Needed (GAO-05-996, Job Code 320335): 

General: 

The Department welcomes the General Accounting Office's draft report on 
intercountry adoptions. We appreciate the effort GAO made to consult 
widely with Department officials both in Washington and at posts 
abroad, as well as with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
(USCIS) officials, about agency procedures and conditions in countries 
of origin affecting intercountry adoptions. 

The Department welcomes the report's conclusion that the Department and 
USCIS have established procedures that provide prospective adoptive 
parents with transparent and accessible information, ensure 
coordination between their distinct, mutually supportive roles, and 
meet the requirements of U.S. laws. We appreciate that the report 
outlines clearly the separate responsibilities of each agency, and its 
recognition of the steps both agencies have taken to ensure that 
intercountry adoptions take place within the context of strong 
safeguards for the interests of children, birth parents and adoptive 
parents. We note that the report does not recommend a fundamental 
restructuring of these arrangements. 

The Department of State is deeply concerned about the welfare of 
children around the world. Towards that end, the Bureau of Consular 
Affairs established the Office of Children's Issues in 1994 to handle 
international parental child abductions and intercountry adoptions. 
Department officials at all levels work extensively with prospective 
adoptive parents, the U.S. adoption community, our Embassies and 
Consulates abroad, Congress, other Federal agencies, and officials in 
countries of origin and other receiving countries to preserve the 
option of intercountry adoption for children in need of permanent 
family placements, and to ensure that intercountry adoptions are 
transparent and conform to internationally accepted standards. 

The Department appreciates that GAO highlighted the importance that 
local factors in countries of origin have on intercountry adoptions, 
and that therefore U.S. Government agencies have taken a flexible 
approach in adopting procedures aimed at responding to particular 
conditions in a given country, rather than adopting a "one size fits 
all" approach. The Bureau of Consular Affairs, and consular officers at 
our Embassies and Consulates overseas, closely monitor trends and 
circumstances that could impact adoptions. The overwhelming majority of 
the more than 20,000 annual intercountry adoptions to the U.S. proceed 
without incident. It is problematic situations - whether caused by a 
moratorium on intercountry adoptions, changes in a country's procedures 
or a high incidence of fraud - which naturally attract attention. When 
the Department learns of changes on the horizon in a given country, we 
alert Congress, the adoption community, and prospective adoptive 
parents, and provide authoritative and up-to-date information on 
developments. We also work with the country concerned to clarify 
information and where possible identify solutions to problems that may 
arise. We have attached at Tab 1 a synopsis of the Department's efforts 
in some of the more high profile and high volume countries of origin. 

We also appreciate the report's acknowledgment of the Department's 
efforts to implement the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (the 
Convention), which the Department regards as an important means of 
promoting strong safeguards and ensuring that intercountry adoption 
remains a viable option for children around the world who seek 
permanent family placements. The Department is proceeding 
simultaneously with several tasks required to implement the Convention. 
We plan to complete these tasks in 2005, to enable adoption service 
providers to be accredited in time for the U.S. to be able to ratify 
the Convention in 2007. 

The following are the Department's comments on the draft report, 
arranged by section. 

Results in Brief: 

Senior level officials in the Department, including the Assistant 
Secretary for Consular Affairs and Ambassadors posted around the world, 
regularly raise intercountry adoptions in diplomatic discussions with 
many countries; for example, adoptions has figured prominently in talks 
with Vietnam, Russia, Azerbaijan and Cambodia. The Assistant Secretary 
has traveled to countries as diverse as Vietnam, Romania and Russia to 
discuss adoptions, and the Department raises this issue wherever 
appropriate in bilateral discussions in Washington with foreign 
governments. (Page 3): 

The draft report notes that additional legislation regarding the U.S. 
intercountry adoption process was introduced in 2005. The legislation 
would seek to change the current structure and responsibilities of the 
Department in this area. 

The Department notes, as does the report, that under current 
organization and procedures the Department is successfully and 
efficiently assisting U.S. citizens interested in intercountry 
adoptions. The Department has significant resources to carry out these 
tasks. A total of 11 staff in the Bureau of Consular Affairs are 
devoted full-time to adoption issues. In addition, as noted above, high-
level Department officials - including the Assistant Secretary for 
Consular Affairs and the Secretary of State - engage counterparts to 
support intercountry adoption for children in need and to overcome 
obstacles that arise. (Page 5): 

Background: 

The draft report's table of countries that currently maintain moratoria 
or restrictions on intercountry adoptions includes countries affected 
by the 2004 South Asian tsunami. The Department believes that it is 
inappropriate to include this entry in this table. The other entries 
identify countries that have limited intercountry adoptions through 
national law or regulation. The situation in the aftermath of the 
tsunami was considerably different. The standard child protection and 
welfare practice accepted by international organizations and 
governments is that intercountry adoption should not be the first 
solution following natural disasters, civil strife or other calamities, 
but that agencies and governments should first attempt to reunite 
children with birth parents if possible; then seek to place the child 
with relatives or domestically if possible; and only after such 
attempts have failed should intercountry adoption be considered. Thus, 
in this case the countries in the region were following accepted 
international practice regarding intercountry adoption, not imposing 
additional restrictions. The Department itself articulated this 
position in a notice placed on its website shortly after the tsunami 
struck. Further, we note that this position was supported by UNICEF, 
other countries of origin, as well as the U.S. adoption community, many 
of whom issued similar statements or posted links to the Department's 
statement on their websites. (Page 9): 

USCIS and State Implement Law for U.S. Intercountry Adoptions, with 
Foreign Governments Playing a Role in the Process: 

Phase III - Child's Eligibility to Immigrate to the United States is 
Determined: 

The Department recognizes the importance of the immigrant visa process 
to prospective adoptive parents, and gives priority to adoption 
immigrant visa applicants at all steps in the process, including: 

* Expedited immigrant visa appointments and interviews; 

* Assistance with expedited fingerprint renewal, if these have expired; 

* Immigrant visa issuance in one or two days, as noted in the report. 

The Department seeks to maintain adoption immigrant visa processing 
even when circumstances force the suspension of other consular 
services. For example, in February 2004 civil unrest prompted the 
evacuation of the Embassy in Port-au Prince, Haiti and the suspension 
of all but emergency U.S. citizen services. Even before all Embassy 
staff had returned, the first visa services to resume were immigrant 
visa appointments for U.S. citizens completing adoptions in Haiti. 
(Pages 12-13): 

USCIS and State Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process: 

The Department requests that the draft report acknowledge the 
Department's, as well as USCIS', outreach to the U.S. adoption 
community. Such outreach has always been an important activity of the 
Bureau of Consular Affairs. The Department provides extensive outreach 
to parents and the adoption community by presenting information at 
regional and national conferences. In FY 2005, for example, Department 
officers addressed national conferences of the Child Welfare League of 
America (CWLA), Joint Council on International Children's Services 
(JCICS), and the National Council for Adoption (NCFA), as well as a 
meeting of adoption agencies from Indiana. The Department, jointly with 
USCIS, conducts quarterly briefings for the JCICS Board of Directors on 
intercountry adoption issues; the Department generally hosts these 
briefings. The Department regularly provides intercountry adoption 
updates upon request to members of CWLA, JCICS, NCFA and other groups 
when they are in Washington. Department officials also regularly brief 
Congressional members and staff on adoption issues. The most recent of 
these briefings was conducted on September 12, 2005. (Page 16): 

The Department understands that GAO reviewed a USCIS task force report 
from 2002 that indicated that USCIS and State officials "sometimes 
lacked the training necessary to determine orphan status." The 
Department notes that all officers who will perform consular functions 
at a post overseas receive extensive training, to include instruction 
in U.S. immigration law, interviewing techniques and consular 
procedures. This training, which has been provided since before 2002, 
provides consular officers with the skills and resources to enable them 
to determine the orphan status of a child adopted overseas. The 
Department would be pleased to provide GAO with further details on this 
training. (Page 16): 

Hague Implementation Timeline: 

The Department has completed revision of the proposed rule on the 
accreditation/approval of adoption service providers based on the 
public comments received, including the preparation of written 
responses to the comments. The revised text of the rule, including a 
preamble incorporating the written responses to the comments, was 
received by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on August 31, 
2005. OMB has 90 days to review the rule and circulate it for 
interagency comments. The Department briefed OMB on the content of the 
proposed rule in July 2005, and requested expedited clearance. (Page 
24) Tab 1: 

Department of State Actions on Intercountry Adoptions Selected 
Countries: 

Belarus: 

The Government of Belarus suspended adoptions in early 2005, reneging 
on promises made to four U.S. and several other foreign families that 
their adoptions would be finalized under old procedures. Another 114 
cases involving U.S. families are also pending. In June 2005, Assistant 
Secretary Maura Harty met with the Belarusian Ambassador to discuss 
these cases and how we can move forward on intercountry adoptions from 
Belarus. In August 2005, A/S Harty sent a follow-up letter to the 
Ambassador to suggest next steps. The Belarusian Government has invited 
a high-level delegation to Minsk to discuss the issue; we recently 
counter-proposed a working-level delegation, and Embassy Minsk is 
trying to clarify Government of Belarus plans to seek from these 
potential meetings. 

Cambodia: 

Then-INS suspended adoptions from Cambodia in December 2001 due to the 
rampant fraud and reports of widespread baby selling. This is currently 
the only moratorium or suspension on adoptions that was initiated by 
the U.S. In the fall of 2004, A/S Harty held two days of talks with 
Cambodian officials in Phnom Penh concerning the possibility of our 
lifting the suspension on intercountry adoptions. After their meeting, 
we hired Holt International (a major adoption service provider based in 
Eugene, OR) to conduct a nationwide study that surveyed children in 
institutions in Cambodia during the summer. Holt has completed the 
survey and this database of children will be turned over to the 
Cambodian government shortly and used as the baseline for a staged plan 
for the reinstitution of adoptions from Cambodia. 

China: 

A/S Harty has traveled to China to observe in person our efforts on 
international adoptions. In August 2005, A/S Hart met with a Chinese 
delegation headed by the Vice Minister for Civil Affairs, which 
oversees adoptions, and discussed China's upcoming accession to the 
Hague Convention and its effect on intercountry adoptions to the U.S. 
China deposited its instrument of ratification of the Hague 
Intercountry Adoption Convention in The Hague on September 16, 2005. 
Post and the Chinese Central Authority report that this should not 
affect the over 7,000 intercountry adoptions from China by American 
families each year. We are watching this closely. 

Guatemala: 

A/S Harty has traveled twice to Guatemala, holding meetings with 
appropriate officials at the Foreign Ministry and at Guatemala's 
Central Authority. In addition, Embassy Guatemala is monitoring closely 
discussions within the Government of Guatemala and the Guatemalan 
legislature concerning possible revision to the country's adoption 
code, which is now going through a legislative hearing process. 
Guatemala is party to the Hague Convention but has never succeeded in 
implementing Hague-consistent adoption legislation. 

Kazakhstan: 

Embassy Almaty reported during the last days of August that they are 
beginning to hear rumors that some regions within Kazakhstan are 
considering moratoria on adoptions to the United States, perhaps 
because of past failures of U.S. adoptive families to comply with post- 
adoption reporting requirements. Post is continuing to monitor the 
situation and is seeking official clarification from Kazakh 
authorities. 

Romania: 

In early 2001, the Government of Romania formalized a de facto 
moratorium that had been in effect since the previous year. During the 
moratorium, which lasted until June 2004, the GOR continued to register 
prospective adoptive parents, including U.S. citizens. Legislation that 
was passed in June 2004 and went into effect in January 2005 
effectively bans all intercountry adoptions, the only exception being 
when the prospective adoptive parents are the child's biological 
grandparents. This law was in large part a response to external 
pressure from the then-EU rapporteur for Romania, Baroness Emma 
Nicholson, who opposes intercountry adoption. 

There are approximately 200 U.S. families who had registered with the 
Romanian authorities either prior to the formal imposition of the 
moratorium or during the moratorium; these families are seeking to 
adopt about 250 Romanian children. U.S. officials at all levels, up to 
and including President Bush, have raised with Romanian officials the 
need to resolve these pending cases. A/S Harty met with President 
Basescu in Bucharest in June 2005 and he committed himself to resolving 
the cases, but nothing has happened. Romanian officials have wavered on 
a proposal first raised in late 2004 to create an international 
commission to review the pending cases. 

In September 2005, A/S Harty appeared before the Helsinki Commission 
and publicly criticized Romania for its inaction on the part of these 
pending cases, as well as its new more restrictive adoption law. 
Immediately following her appearance before the Commission, A/S Harty 
attended a U.S./EU Troika meeting in London, where she again voiced 
concern about Romania and sought assistance from EU member states to 
encourage a lifting of the moratorium in Romania. As of September 2005, 
we have redirected our focus to the EU and European Commission; a 
demarche cable has just gone out requesting support from selected 
capitals to convince the Romanians that they do not need such a 
draconian adoption law in order to accede to the European Union in 
2007. 

Russia: 

The U.S.-Russian relationship on intercountry adoption has been 
dominated in recent months by the reports of three adopted Russian 
children murdered by their American adoptive parents. Some Duma members 
have suggested a moratorium on intercountry adoptions, at least to the 
United States. In mid-August, the Federation Council (the higher 
chamber of parliament) recommended such a moratorium to the General 
Prosecutor. The primary Russian concerns are that (a) American adoptive 
parents are not undergoing sufficient pre-adoption background checks 
and counseling, and (b) a failure of U.S. families and adoption service 
providers to follow through on post-adoption reporting requirements 
leaves the Russian Government with little information about how the 
children do post-placement. Much of the focus has been on so-called 
"independent" adoptions - i.e., those adoptions facilitated by other 
than fully accredited agencies. 

In addition to a possible moratorium, some Russian officials have also 
suggested a bilateral adoption agreement with the U.S. along the lines 
of what we have with Vietnam, but it is the U.S. position that a 
sufficient international mechanism (the Hague Adoption Convention, 
which Russia has signed but not ratified) already exists to provide 
safeguards for intercountry adoptions. Major U.S. adoption 
organizations, including both the National Council for Adoption (NCFA) 
and the Joint Council on International Children's Services (JCICS) have 
agreed to advocate for better counseling and training of prospective 
adoptive parents, and for 100% compliance with post adoption reporting. 

The issue of adoptions is always on the agenda when A/S Harty or her 
PDAS meet with their Russian counterparts. PDAS Smith traveled to 
Moscow in February 2004; A/S Harty went in February 2005. A/S Harty has 
twice hosted the Russians here in Washington, most recently in 
September 2005. During the September 21 bilateral consular talks with 
the Russians, A/S Harty expressed her condolences for the murdered 
Russian children and repudiated these actions. She then stressed the 
need for both sides to commit themselves to procedures that will 
protect the children, birth parents and prospective adoptive parents. 
She urged the Russians to ratify the Hague Adoption Convention, which 
will help ensure better safeguards in the process. Separately, on 
September 14, DAS Catherine Barry and officers from the Office of 
Children's Issues met with the members of a two-week International 
Visitor Program (IVP) on intercountry adoptions. We are hopeful that 
exposure to many aspects of the U.S. adoption system (including the 
meeting in the Department) will allow participants to take back a 
positive view of the safeguards the U.S. has in place. 

Sierra Leone: 

Embassy Dakar (which conducts informal reviews prior to I-600 filings 
at request of parents) and Embassy Freetown have had to conduct many 
field investigations due to the unreliability of Sierra Leonean 
documentation and allegations of rampant fraud. In August 2005, A/S 
Harty approved the creation and funding of a new local investigator 
position in Freetown to help deal with the caseload. Acting A/S for 
Legislative Affairs Matthew Reynolds recently responded to a letter 
from 15 Senators and House Members on the situation in Sierra Leone; 
the letter emphasized the inherent problems of operating in a country 
in which so many families are living in internally displaced person 
(IDP) camps. 

Ukraine: 

A/S Harty traveled to Ukraine in May 2005 and raised concerns about a 
rumor regarding the possible suspension of adoptions. On September 21, 
Embassy Kiev, informed us that Ukraine had suddenly suspended 
intercountry adoptions from the United States, citing problems with 
post-adoption reporting by American families during 1996-2003. On 
September 23, A/S Harty contacted the Deputy Foreign Minister in Kiev 
to express our displeasure with this abrupt decision and to ask how we 
might assist in solving this problem. On September 27, A/S Harty met 
with the Ukrainian Charge d'Affaires and Consul to again press the 
issue and look for a solution. Our Embassy in Kiev is also working with 
various parts of the Ukrainian Government to see if this decision can 
be reversed. As we understand it, the suspension should not affect 
cases already in the pipeline. In addition, new legislation is on the 
horizon that would transfer authority for adoptions to the Ministry of 
Family, Youth and Sports and add other safeguards. 

Vietnam: 

The U.S.-Vietnam bilateral agreement on adoptions, signed by A/S Harty 
and the Vietnamese Minister of Justice on June 21 in Washington, 
entered into force on September 1, 2005. This followed years of 
negotiations and personal involvement by A/S Harty to bring this to 
fruition. The agreement allowed the Ministry of Justice (and 
specifically the Department of International Adoptions, DIA) to 
centralize many of the powers and authority that had previously been 
left to the provinces, but made no changes to U.S. laws or requirements 
on adopting from Vietnam. With the entry-into-force of the agreement, 
the DIA began accepting applications for licenses from U.S. adoption 
service providers. DIA chief Dr. Long has told Embassy Hanoi that he 
expects the licensing process to take from two to two-and-a-half 
months, meaning post should be seeing the first cases under the new 
system by mid-November. Separately, the Visa Office has been working 
with Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS/CIS) on a proposal to 
transfer adoption visa processing from Ho Chi Minh City to Hanoi; this 
is still under discussion and a final decision has not yet been taken. 

The following are GAO's comments on the letter from the Department of 
State dated October 12, 2005. 

GAO Comments: 

1. State commented that the draft report's table of countries that 
currently maintain restrictions on intercountry adoptions included 
countries affected by the 2004 South Asian tsunami. The department did 
not believe that it was appropriate to do so because the region was 
following accepted international practices rather than imposing 
restrictions on intercountry adoptions in contrast to the other 
countries included in the table. We removed this listing from the 
table. 

2. State provided additional information regarding its outreach efforts 
to the adoption community, which we added to the report. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Jess Ford (202) 512-4268 or [Hyperlink, fordj@gao.gov]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Phyllis Anderson, Assistant 
Director; Joe Carney; Tracey Cross; Mark Dowling; Joel Grossman; Rhonda 
Horried; and Victoria Lin made key contributions to this report. 

(320335): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] A U.S. intercountry adoption is defined as an adoption of a child 
who changed his or her habitual country of residence, the sending 
country, to the United States, the receiving country. This report 
measures the number of U.S. intercountry adoptions using the number of 
visas issued to these children to immigrate to the United States. 
Unless otherwise specified, the report uses the term "intercountry 
adoption" to refer to children coming into the United States. 

[2] One exception is Moscow, Russia, where USCIS has an office present, 
but State has this delegated authority. See appendix III for a list of 
USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices. 

[3] Codified at 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. 

[4] The act includes in its definition of immediate relative children 
who have been orphaned by the death or disappearance of, or abandonment 
or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents. If one 
parent remains, that parent must be incapable of providing the proper 
care for the child and must, in writing, irrevocably release the child 
for adoption and emigration. Additionally, a child can qualify as an IR 
if the child has resided with and been in the legal custody of the 
adopting parent for at least 2 years, or, in some instances, where the 
child has not yet been adopted, but is traveling to the United States 
for purposes of adoption. Also, a child qualifies as an IR if he or she 
is the natural sibling of a child that has been adopted or is being 
adopted by the same family and meets all requirements above except that 
the child is under the age of 18. 

[5] Pub. L. No. 106-279 (Oct. 6, 2000). 

[6] The act assigns functions specified in Article 14 of the Convention 
(relating to the filing of applications of prospective adoptive 
parents) to the Attorney General. 

[7] Pub. L. No. 106-395 (Oct. 30, 2000). 

[8] To be eligible, a child must meet the following requirements: (1) 
has at least one U.S. citizen parent (by birth or naturalization), (2) 
is under 18 years of age, (3) resides permanently in the United States 
in the legal and physical custody of a U.S. citizen parent, and (4) 
meets the requirements applicable to adopted children under the INA. 

[9] The legislation, known as the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act of 
2005, proposes to establish an Office of Intercountry Adoptions within 
State and appoint an Ambassador at Large to head the office; transfer 
functions and resources related to intercountry adoptions currently 
performed by DHS to State; amend INA to grant automatic U.S. 
citizenship to some foreign-born adopted children; and require an 
annual report on intercountry adoption. 

[10] To assess the reliability of the data we used from the State's 
Immigrant Visa Overseas System (IVO), we interviewed knowledgeable 
agency officials about the completeness and accuracy of the data. Based 
on the information and documentation we obtained, we concluded that the 
data were sufficiently reliable to use in this report. 

[11] With U.S. implementation of the Hague Convention through IAA, 
State will be required to submit a report to Congress that includes the 
number of U.S. children emigrating from the United States for 
intercountry adoptions. 

[12] The term restriction in this report may refer to suspensions, 
bans, or moratoriums. 

[13] For example, countries affected by the 2004 Tsunami, such as 
Indonesia and Sri Lanka, announced measures to prevent adoptions of 
children who lost their parents in the disaster until all reasonable 
efforts to reunite such children with immediate or close relatives had 
been concluded. According to State officials, this practice follows 
accepted international practice regarding intercountry adoptions rather 
than imposing restrictions on adoptions. 

[14] China issued a suspension on intercountry adoptions due to medical 
reasons (SARS outbreak) that was lifted in 2003. Vietnam issued a 
decree in 2002 that required an agreement on intercountry adoptions 
between Vietnam and other countries. The United States and Vietnam did 
not have an agreement at the time the decree was issued and, therefore, 
intercountry adoptions were stopped. However, after the two countries 
signed an agreement in June 2005, adoptions have resumed. Azerbaijan 
issued a suspension in 2004 pending the implementation of new adoption 
procedures. Azerbaijan lifted the suspension in August 2005 when an 
Azerbaijani investigation into adoption practices was concluded. 

[15] Most parents who permanently reside in the United States and adopt 
overseas go through this three-step process. 

[16] Under the INA, the prospective parent of an orphan must be a U.S. 
citizen and, if married, apply for permission to adopt a foreign orphan 
jointly with his or her spouse or, if unmarried, be at least 25 years 
old at the time he or she files the orphan petition. Meeting 
preadoption requirements of the child's proposed state of residence is 
applicable to cases in which parents are required to readopt the child 
in the United States. 

[17] At USCIS domestic offices, staffing to handle intercountry 
adoptions is determined by each office. In offices with large 
caseloads, between one and two staff handle intercountry adoption 
cases. Intercountry adoption cases make up less than 1 percent of the 
agency's overall workload, about 22,000 cases of approximately 6 to 7 
million total cases. 

[18] The laws of every state and the District of Columbia require all 
prospective parents (no matter where they intend to adopt) to 
participate in a home study. This process has two purposes for 
intercountry adoption: to educate and prepare the adoptive family for 
adoption and to evaluate the fitness of the adoptive family. Specific 
home study requirements vary greatly from agency to agency, state to 
state, and (in the case of intercountry adoption) by the child's 
country of origin. USCIS includes requirements for the home study in 
its standard operating procedures. 

[19] Filing of the Form I-600A is optional, and it enables parents who 
want to adopt, yet have not identified an orphan, to initiate the 
adoption process. Regardless of whether parents file a Form I-600A, 
they must file a Form I-600. 

[20] In 30 overseas USCIS offices, USCIS adjudicates orphan cases. In 
countries where USCIS does not have an overseas office, State consular 
officers help determine the child's orphan status and approve adoption 
cases; if cases are not approvable, consular officers send these to one 
of USCIS' three district offices overseas in Bangkok, Mexico City, and 
Rome. See appendix III for a list of USCIS Overseas District and Sub 
Offices. 

[21] In Guatemala, the U.S. embassy schedules specific immigrant visa 
appointment dates and times for all adoption cases. 

[22] According to the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, 
states such as Colorado and Connecticut do not grant full recognition 
until that decree is validated by a state court. For more information, 
see http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/international.pdf. 

[23] For children not yet adopted, not seen by both adopting parents, 
or who will reside in states requiring readoption, parents must also 
submit the Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support) with accompanying 
documentation. 

[24] IR-3 visas are issued for orphans who had a full and final 
adoption overseas by both adopting parents, when both parents 
physically saw the child prior to or during local adoption proceedings. 
IR-4 visas are is sued when a full and final adoption has not been 
completed overseas, or when a full and final adoption has been 
completed but one or both parents(s) did not see the child prior to or 
during the adoption process. 

[25] The visa package includes the Application for Advance Processing 
of Orphan Petition, Petition to Classify the Orphan as an Immediate 
Relative, a USCIS or State official's Determination on Child for 
Adoption, court adoption decree, birth certificate, abandonment or 
relinquishment documents, DS-230, medical-panel physician report, 
immunizations or waiver, evidence of employment, and evidence of assets 
and liabilities. Additionally, the Affidavit of Support (Form I-864) 
and 3 years' income tax reports are included in the package for IR-4 
visas. 

[26] These costs include U.S. government fees, such as the USCIS 
application fee of $525, State's visa fee of $335, and Federal Bureau 
of Investigation fingerprint fee of $70 per adoptive family member. The 
remainder of the costs to adoptive parents includes adoption agency, 
facilitator, and attorney fees; fees charged for the home study; travel 
expenses; and fees charged by foreign governments. 

[27] On March 1, 2003, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services became 
one of three INS components to join DHS. 

[28] The Cambodia situation is discussed later in this report. 

[29] USCIS' Web site is http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/index2.htm. 
State's Web site is 
http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/adoption_485.html. 

[30] Since USCIS allows parents up to 1 year to file their home study 
after USCIS has received the parents' application and fee, USCIS 
determines the application processing time from when USCIS receives the 
parents' application and fees to when USCIS completes adjudication of 
the application including the submitted home study. 

[31] Innocenti Digest, Intercountry Adoption (Florence, Italy: December 
1998). 

[32] In order to become a party to the Convention, states must either 
ratify or accede to the Convention. Member states to the Hague 
Conference typically sign and then subsequently ratify the Convention. 
Nonmember states, including, for example, Guatemala, do not sign the 
Convention, but can accede to it. 

[33] The Convention also allows countries that have implemented the 
Convention to enter into agreements to improve the function of the 
Convention procedures. 

[34] Central Authorities from other countries have the right to not 
accept nonaccredited entities involvement in the process. The Central 
Authority is required to provide the names of accredited and 
nonaccredited bodies involved in the process. 

[35] Pub. L. No. 106-279 (Oct. 6, 2000), 42 USC4901 et seq. 

[36] IAA requires the issuance of new regulations for the accreditation 
process for adoption service providers and preservation of Convention 
records. In addition, regulations will need to be drafted to account 
for the changes made to the visa issuance process. 

[37] IAA requires State to submit a report to Congress that includes 
the number of intercountry adoptions that involve a child immigrating 
to and emigrating from the United States for both Hague and non-Hague 
adoption cases. 

[38] 42 U.S.C. 14923 (b). 

[39] For a full list, see 
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.statusprint&cid=69. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: