Audit of the Immigration Program at the Canadian Mission in Hong Kong

Audit Report
Internal Audit and Accountability Branch
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
October 2009

Table of Contents

• List of Acronyms
• Executive Summary
• 1.0 Introduction
  • 1.1 Background
  • 1.2 Audit Objectives
  • 1.3 Audit Criteria
  • 1.4 Audit Scope
  • 1.5 Audit Methodology
• 2.0 Audit Conclusion
• 3.0 Observations and Recommendations
  • 3.1 Governance Framework
  • 3.2 Risk Management
  • 3.3 Internal Control Framework
• Appendix A: Hong Kong Mission Organization Chart
• Appendix B: Detailed Criteria for the Audit
• Appendix C: Management Action Plan
• Appendix D: Audit Timeline

List of Acronyms

Executive Summary

The Citizenship and Immigration Risk-Based Audit Plan for 2008–2011 identifies the conduct of mission audits. The selection of the Canadian Consulate in Hong Kong was done in consultation with the IR Branch at CIC NHQ and was based on an operational assessment of the mission’s operations in relation to other offices. The dates for the on-site fieldwork were October 20 to 31, 2008.

The Hong Kong mission is one of the largest Full Service Centre (FSC) visa offices in Canada’s overseas network. The visa section has a large compliment of staff. According to IR data, the mission has 72 FTEs. As an FSC, Hong Kong processes the full range of immigration applications from residents of Hong Kong, Macao and parts of the People’s Republic of China. In 2008, the mission received permanent resident applications from 30,637 persons, finalized 22,278 individuals’ cases, and issued visas to 16,474 people. The mission’s overall visa target for permanent residence applications was 16,937.The inventory of persons whose cases were awaiting a decision at the mission as of February 6, 2009 was 58,571, of which approximately 86% were in the economic class. On the temporary resident side, the office finalized (approved or refused) applications from 11,861 visitors, 2,144 students and 6,924 temporary workers in 2008. The approval rate for each line of business was 75%, 82% and 83% respectively.

The audit objectives were to assess:

• the adequacy of the governance framework in place at the mission to administer the immigration program;
• the adequacy of risk management processes and practices to support the achievement of the program’s objectives; and
• the adequacy of the internal control framework in place over operational, administrative and activities at the mission.

The criteria that were used in the audit are based on Treasury Board and CIC applicable legislation, policies and directives.

Overall, we found that:

• The governance framework generally met our expectations;
• Risk management processes and practices met our expectations; and
• The internal control framework over operational, administrative and financial activities generally met our expectations. Though we note some adjustments were required for operational activities and administrative controls.

Consequently, this audit made two recommendations in the area of internal controls that dealt with roles and responsibilities in the processing of immigration applications and procedures to safeguard control documents. Management action plans to address these areas were developed by mission management and are included as part of this report.

1.0 Introduction

The Citizenship and Immigration Risk-Based Audit Plan for 2008–2011 identifies the conduct of mission audits. The selection of the Canadian Consulate in Hong Kong was done in consultation with the IR Branch at CIC NHQ and was based on an operational assessment of the mission’s operations in relation to other offices. The dates for the on-site fieldwork were October 20 to 31, 2008.

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Operations

CIC is responsible for the recruitment, selection and processing of foreign nationals who wish to come to Canada on a temporary and or permanent basis for reasons which will stimulate economic growth and enrich Canada's social and cultural environment.  Within the Department, this responsibility has been assigned to the Operations Sector which is divided into domestic and overseas operations. Overseas operations fall under the responsibility of the IR Branch. IR accomplishes this through its network of visa offices (or missions) abroad. These are broken down into RPCs, full service centres, satellites and specialized offices. RPCs and full service centres are responsible for the delivery of the full range of immigration services for the countries they serve. The distinction between these two is that RPCs are responsible for overseeing satellite offices. Satellites and specialized program offices do not deliver the full range of immigration services.

The Hong Kong mission is one of the largest FSC visa offices in Canada’s overseas network. The visa section has a large compliment of staff. According to IR data, the mission has 72 FTEs as follows:

• 10 Canada Based Officers (CBOs) (2 of whom are Migration Integrity Officers (MIOs))
• 11 Locally Engaged Program (LEP) Officers
• 51 Locally Engaged Staff (LES)

Appendix A presents a summarized organizational chart as of October 2008.

As an FSC, Hong Kong processes the full range of immigration applications from residents of Hong Kong, Macao and parts of the People’s Republic of China.

Application processing at the mission is led by four CBOs (one lead for non-immigrant application processing and three team leads for permanent resident application processing) who report to the Deputy IPM. The office is also comprised of a case analyst unit and a registry unit that support permanent resident application processing and whose supervisors also report to the Deputy IPM. The final unit is the migration integrity unit, headed by the Senior MIO, which contains representatives from CBSA and an anti-fraud group that supports immigration processing. The Deputy IPM and the MIO report to the IPM.

In 2008, the mission received permanent resident applications from 30,637 persons, finalized 22,278 individuals’ cases, and issued visas to 16,474 people. The mission’s overall visa target for permanent residence applications was 16,937. The inventory of persons whose cases were awaiting a decision at the mission as of February 6, 2009 was 58,571, of which approximately 86% were in the economic class. On the temporary resident side, the office finalized (approved or refused) applications from 11,861 visitors, 2,144 students and 6,924 temporary workers in 2008. The approval rate for each line of business was 75%, 82% and 83% respectively. Mission statistics for 2008, 2007 and 2006 are summarized in the Table 1 below:

Table 1. Hong Kong Statistics

1.1.2 Environmental Context

This section of the report highlights some of the operating environment issues which the mission faces. These are presented here for information purposes only and do not reflect any particular order.

Hong Kong is one of the largest visa offices within CIC’s network of overseas offices. Mission management indicated that it faces the following challenges:

• High incidence of fraud – The mission has identified the existence of fraud in both its family class and economic class movement with the former being more problematic and most pervasive in its spousal family movement for those applicants originating from the mainland.
• Cross-border issues – Historical issues with courier service to the mainland saw the mission requiring that People’s Republic of China (PRC) clients bring in their passports in person for immigrant visa issuance. The mission was examining the feasibility of implementing this service as market conditions in the environment have improved and its implementation should noticeably improve client service.
• Shared responsibility for PRC – Responsibility for immigration services for the PRC is shared by Hong Kong with the visa offices located at the Canadian Embassy in Beijing and the Consulate General in Shanghai.
• Introduction of VAC – With the introduction of the VAC in Guangzhou, the volume of temporary resident applications received from individuals residing in the PRC and processed by Hong Kong has decreased as other offices in the region now process more of these applications.
• Increase in PR applications – With the introduction of IRPA, immigration application intake dropped significantly. However in recent years, the intake of immigration applications in Hong Kong has returned to pre-IRPA levels.
• Resources – With the introduction of IRPA, the mission saw a decrease in its applications which was soon followed by a decrease in staff. Recent years have seen applications return to pre-IRPA levels without the return of resources. To manage this, the mission employs emergency LES on a perpetual basis.
• Office renovations – The mission is undergoing major renovations as part of a chancery-wide renovation program which has had an impact on immigration operations and service delivery. The first phase completed saw a reduction in immigration office space. The second phase, underway at the time of our audit, sought to improve space utilization and the installation of additional storage facilities.
• Increased inventory – With the reduction in space and increased level of applications, the mission’s overall inventory has grown and is an issue in terms of file management and storage for the mission.

1.2 Audit Objectives

The audit objectives were to assess the adequacy of:

• the governance framework in place at the mission to administer the immigration program;
• risk management processes and practices to support the achievement of the program’s objectives; and
• the internal control framework in place over operational, administrative and activities at the mission.

1.3 Audit Criteria

The criteria that were used in the audit are based on Treasury Board and CIC applicable legislation, policies and directives. The detailed criteria for the audit are presented in Appendix B.

1.4 Audit Scope

The audit only involved operations at the Canadian Mission in Hong Kong. The audit scope covered all significant aspects of CIC operations at the mission. This included the full range of immigrant and non-immigrant program activities with associated financial and administrative components typically found in a full service centre. The audit examined activities of the mission from July 1, 2007 to the end of the on-site examination period on October 31, 2008.

1.5 Audit Methodology

There were three lines of enquiry: governance framework, risk management practices and the internal control framework.

As part of our examination of the governance framework and risk management, we interviewed immigration staff, as well as other consulate staff with links to immigration operations, reviewed documents, observed processes, documented controls, tested information, and reviewed samples of management files to test for compliance.

As part of our examination of the internal control framework, we examined controls over the application processing, CAIPS, controlled documents, cost recovery, and travel and hospitality expenditures.

For our examination of application processing, we examined all decisions related to permanent resident determination travel documents, temporary resident and permanent resident cases and temporary resident permits finalized over the period of July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 to test compliance with decision-making authorities. We also conducted interviews with immigration staff and other consulate staff with links to immigration operations, reviews of documentation, observation of processes and documentation of controls. The audit also examined a judgmental sample of 10 permanent resident determination travel documents, 35 temporary resident cases and 40 permanent resident cases which were finalised during the period of July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 to assess compliance with legislation, regulations and policy requirements of the case file. The sample size was judgmentally determined taking into consideration mission processing volumes. Selection of individual sample cases was done randomly from the population. The file review of sample cases was done to validate our observations from interviews, documentation reviews and observation of procedures in place at the mission.

For other areas under examination as part of our review of internal controls, we also conducted interviews with immigration staff and other consulate staff with links to immigration operations, reviews of documentation, observation of processes and documentation of controls. Specifically, we examined CAIPS user profiles, tested CAIPS inventory controls, tested samples of controlled documents inventory transactions, examined cost recovery revenue controls, and reviewed a sample of travel and hospitality claims to assess compliance with applicable legislation, policies and procedures in order to conclude on the state of controls in place.

The audit was conducted to be in accordance with the Government of Canada’s Policy on Internal Audit as well as with the Institute of Internal Auditors professional practice standards.

2.0 Audit Conclusions

We found:

• The governance framework generally met our expectations;
• Risk management processes and practices met our expectations; and
• The internal control framework over operational, administrative and financial activities generally met our expectations. Though we note some adjustments were required for operational activities and administrative controls.

Our detailed observations and recommendations, in these areas, can be found in the following sections.

3.0 Observations and Recommendations

3.1 Governance Framework

The audit examined six areas of the governance framework. These were governance and strategic direction, values and ethics, people/human resources management, client-focused service, results and performance and learning innovation and change management. We expected to find that accountabilities were appropriate, values and ethics were promoted and reinforced, the office was managed to ensure an effective workplace, services delivered by the office reflect the requirements of its clients, information on results was gathered, used to make decisions and reported and that learning and development activities were in place.

Overall, we found that the governance framework in place at the mission generally met our expectations.

3.1.1 Governance and Strategic Direction

In reviewing governance and strategic direction, we expected to find that structures were in place to ensure that accountabilities were adequately discharged. Specifically, we expected to find clear reporting and accountability lines that demonstrated appropriate delegations. We also expected to find integrated planning, budgeting, and monitoring and established communication protocols for partner stakeholders in place and functioning as intended.

We found that clearly defined reporting accountability lines were established with operational teams reporting to team leads who then reported to the deputy program manager who ultimately reported to the IPM. We also found that the mission complied with international region planning process, that links could be found between various planning documents and that these plans supported the achievement of results. Lastly, we found that communication protocols had been established and were functioning as intended. We therefore found that governance and strategic directions were appropriate and consequently met our expectations.

3.1.2 Public Service Values

As part of our audit in this area, we expected to find that management promoted public service values and ethics and employees were aware of these.

We found that management promoted public service values. We were advised that this was primarily done through team meetings and training. We also found that the promotion of public service values was supported through HR management practices. Interviews conducted as part of this audit found that staff were aware of public service values and ethics. Consequently we found that controls in place at the mission over public service values and ethics met our expectations.

3.1.3 People

The audit expected to find that the management of this function ensured employees were aware of their responsibilities, received feedback on their performance and that in general HR practices were in compliance with appropriate legislation and policies.

Generally, the process in place is integrated into the HR management process at the mission. At the time of annual performance reviews, supervisors assess staff on the previous year’s performance. This then leads into the identification of training needs which are then integrated into an employee’s learning plan. Additionally, the next year’s performance objectives are set at this time. Our review of a sample of 8 staff files found this generally to be the case. Our interviews with staff found that the process is functioning as intended as staff understood their role. We also found that as the year evolves, performance objectives are modified by team leads. Though we note that performance objectives that are set tended to be more qualitative in nature without the balance of some inclusion of quantitative measures. This is discussed in section 3.1.5 below. As a result, we found that human resource management generally met our expectations.

3.1.4 Client Focused Service

We expected to find that services delivered by the office reflected the requirements of its clients. Specifically, we expected to find processes were in place to establish, maintain and monitor service principles and standards for clients. We also expected to find that processes were in place for effective tracking and resolution of complaints.

We found that the mission captured information on services offered and that this was available to clients of these services primarily through the website. Our audit also found that tools were in place which allowed for the tracking of complaints from receipt to resolution and that the system in place also allowed for monitoring of the status of these complaints. Accordingly, we found that client focused services at the Hong Kong mission met our expectations.

3.1.5 Results and Performance

The audit expected that relevant information on results would be gathered, used to make decisions and reported. Specifically, we expected that performance measures were in place and monitored, measures were updated to reflect work carried out by the mission and results were analyzed and used in decision making.

We found that the mission had generally identified appropriate performance measures and that processes were in place to monitor actual performance against planned results. Performance information is captured by team leaders who then produce reports which are reviewed by senior management. We found this information allowed mission management to understand the status of workloads within the mission and manage resources towards the achievement of output performance objectives. This information is balanced with qualitative reviews of performance with staff. Both practices are sound and meet our expectations in terms of overall results and performance, though we provided management some suggestions on how performance measures could be adjusted to further strengthen these practices while we were on site.

3.1.6 Learning, Innovation and Change Management

The audit expected to find that the office employed learning and development activities to promote innovation and change management in order to learn from its performance.

Our audit found that the mission undergoes frequent change. For instance, the mission had undergone a major change initiative in its office accommodation which had been largely completed at the time of our audit. We found that opportunities for change, such as this one, are identified in planning documents and that communication of change activities occurred at meetings to both inform staff and solicit input to support the implementation of the change. We therefore found that learning, innovation and change management met our expectations.

3.2 Risk Management

As part of the audit of Hong Kong, we examined the adequacy of risk management processes and practices in place to support the achievement of the mission’s objectives. We specifically expected to see that processes were in place to identify, assess, mitigate and monitor risks, that management appropriately communicated risk and risk management strategies to key stakeholders and that planning and resource allocation considered risk information.

We found that risk management practices are built into the operations of the mission. As applications are processed, potential risk areas are identified which result in discussion at the mission in team meetings and/or the establishment of a QA review. From this, risk mitigation strategies are formulated, as needed, and implemented through the communication of bulletins or new procedures to applicable stakeholders. Our review found links existed between risk documented in planning documents, QA findings and mitigations strategies. Consequently, we found that risk management practices in place at the mission met our expectations.

3.3 Internal Control Framework

As part of the audit of the internal control framework, controls in place over application processing, CAIPS, controlled documents, cost recovery, and travel and hospitality expenditures were examined.

We found that the internal control framework generally met our expectations. However, we note that some adjustments were required for operational activities and administrative controls.

3.3.1 Application Processing

The audit of application processing examined the degree of compliance of practices and procedures with applicable legislation and policies associated with the delivery of the immigration program at the Hong Kong mission. To this end, immigrant and non-immigrant processing was examined. We expected to find that application decisions were adequately documented, processes and procedures were compliant to applicable legislation and policies, sufficient controls were in place at the mission to ensure admissibility requirements are met and that designated and delegated authorities for decisions were appropriate and in compliance with departmental policy.

We found that controls in place over application processing generally met our expectations.

In documenting and reviewing the application processes in place at the mission, we noted the following:

• Local document retention policies did not comply with departmental policy. Though we note that this variation would affect a limited range of cases. We also note that we did not observe any instances where this applied to cases in the period under examination in Hong Kong.
• Mission management expressed concern in its resource levels in two critical units in the mission (Registry and Case Analysis Units).
• Mission management also advised of concerns with respect to file storage and space management.

Based on the current office configuration and processing bottle necks in the mission, we noted some opportunities to improve file management. We discussed the above issues with mission management and provided them with some advice on these issues for their consideration while we were on-site.

As part of our audit, we reviewed samples of cases finalized. Generally, we found that cases were processed in accordance with requirements. However, we did note variation in the manner and extent to which teams documented procedures but, given the size of the mission, this is to be expected. We provided management with these details for their consideration.

We also reviewed all decisions made on cases finalized over our review period and found that all selection and final decisions were rendered by authorized staff. We found that Designated Immigration Officers (DIOs) were making part of the admissibility assessment in terms of determining criminal admissibility. Generally, these decisions are not made by DIOs. In total, these decisions were made by 7 DIOs and accounted for approximately 60% of these decisions that were made during the period under examination. We have noted similar issue in our recent audits in other missions abroad.

The sequence for decisions when processing an application for permanent residence is for a designated officer to first determine if the individual meets the selection criteria in the category under which they applied. If approved at the first stage, the applicant is then assessed to determine if they are admissible to Canada. Admissibility is primarily based on three grounds (medical, criminal and security). A final review is done to ensure all requirements have been met and the case will then be approved by an authorized officer. Depending on the stage in processing, different levels of designated officers are authorized to render decisions though we note the same officer may assess the same file at different steps in the process.

As part of officer designation, officers are provided rigorous training in Ottawa on their duties and responsibilities according to their level. Designation of officers is done on the recommendation of program managers but remains the sole prerogative of IR at NHQ. Depending on the level of the officer, they are permitted different access to sensitive information. Therefore, the risk of individuals without designated or delegated authority rendering certain decisions is that they lack the training and, in some instances, access to information relevant to the decision. However, we note that long-serving employees can compensate the lack of training with on-the- job knowledge and experience.

Recommendation 1:

The mission ensures that only staff with the appropriate authority render decisions.

Management Response

Agree. The mission sought clarification from NHQ on designations and delegations and adjusted processes accordingly. The mission removed access to criminality and security sections of CAIPS for all DIOs.

3.3.2 CAIPS

As part of the audit of the internal control framework, controls over CAIPS were examined. We expected to find that there were appropriate controls in place to ensure appropriate use of CAIPS at the mission and that CAIPS assets were safeguarded.

We found the control framework surrounding CAIPS met our expectations. Specifically, through our testing of profiles and interviews with staff, we found that management had established an appropriate process to grant access to and monitor use of CAIPS. However, we did note some irregularities in terms of access, which were discussed in the previous section. Our review of CAIPS documents, observations of the physical environment and interviews found that the mission had appropriate controls in place to safeguard CAIPS assets.

3.3.3 Controlled Documents

As part of the audit of the internal control framework, controls over controlled documents were examined. The audit expected to find that roles and responsibilities (duties) were appropriate and that there was an effective control framework in place for the custodianship, safeguarding and control of controlled documents. In missions abroad, controlled documents are comprised of counterfoils and seals and are issued together as a visa. Counterfoils are the document on which missions print visa information and seals are a document which is placed over counterfoils which are placed in passports to prevent tampering.

We found the control framework in place for controlled documents generally met our expectations. We found that roles and responsibilities were assigned and despite the fact we observed some variation from policy with respect to the assignment of responsibilities, we found that appropriate compensating controls were in place to ensure accountability. Historically, we found that significant controls were not in place over controlled documents but that the current Forms Control Officer (FCO) had made incremental improvements over time to the control framework. These included daily reconciliations of documents used for temporary residents, use of electronic tools and improved recording of document usage. In fact, the FCO built upon the electronic tools and incorporated additional coding to create controls which would alert staff immediately to the possibility of errors, thus further strengthening this tool. Consequently, as part of our audit testing, we were able to reconcile the mission’s inventory to its most recent quarterly inventory report. We also found that the physical controls in place were adequate to safeguard unused controlled documents.

However, we did find one issue of note with respect to practices at the mission that pertain to the issuance of permanent resident visas. The general practice for visa issuance for approved cases is for missions to print visas once in possession of an applicant’s passport. Departmental policy indicates that the visa should then be placed in the applicant’s passport and have a seal affixed over it to avoid tampering while the serial numbers of both are noted. At the end of the day, missions are expected to reconcile the number of counterfoils and seals used as a control to ensure no documents have gone missing.

In Hong Kong, the practice in place was that once an application for permanent residence was approved the mission would print a visa (i.e. counterfoil) and then request the applicant to bring their passport into the mission for visa collection, making note of which counterfoil was used on which application, on the day it was printed. Upon presentation of an applicant’s passport, the mission would place the visa and seal in their passport, making note of the seal used on the day it was placed in the passport. During the intervening period, the mission secured these visas in a room in the registry section where only the FCO, visa printing clerk and the head of the unit had access. Due to the lag in time between when a visa was printed and when the passport was presented to the mission, the mission was not able to reconcile the number of counterfoils to seals used.

The mission advised that this procedure was implemented in the past due to concerns with respect to mail and courier service to the region the mission serves. Moreover, mission management indicated that reductions in resources at the mission have necessitated the need for the mission to print visas in advance in order that the mission could maintain levels of client service on a day-to-day basis.

By not reconciling the number of counterfoils to the number of seals used, the mission would be unable to demonstrate that documents have not gone missing. While the current FCO implemented a compensating control in the form of a log for seals issued to compliment the log maintained of counterfoils issued, this control does not completely mitigate this risk. Furthermore, we note that mission management had begun exploring the option of implementing a courier service for its permanent resident application processing which would see the use of couriers to both receive and return passports.

Recommendation 2:

The mission takes immediate steps to adjust its controlled documents procedures for visa issuance to comply with policy.

Management Response

Hong Kong agrees fully.

3.3.4 Cost Recovery

The audit examined the control framework in place to safeguard revenues collected in the immigration section of the mission. The mission accepts payment in Hong Kong dollars by credit card, electronic payment system (EPS), and certified instrument. Certified instruments issued in Canadian dollars are also accepted. The mission’s immigration revenues totaled $16.5 million CAD in 2007/08 and $17.3 million CAD in 2006/07.

We expected to find that roles and responsibilities (duties) were in accordance with departmental policies for cost recovery, that adequate controls were in place to safeguard cost recovery revenues, and that an adequate monitoring regime was in place.

Overall, the mission generally met our expectations in this area. We found that funds were collected in accordance with policy. Specifically, we found that funds collected were recorded at time of receipt and were traceable from source to the application they were applied to. We also found that the mission had adequate controls to account for and report on funds collected.

Our audit testing of cost recovery transactions found that in the past, some internal controls were not in place but have since been implemented. These included:

1. Incorrect coding of RPRF rate reduction refunds
2. Processing of group fee payments as single payments

The first would affect the mission’s ability to accurately report on revenues collected while the second decreased the traceability of funds collected as well as controls in place to ensure that fees had been collected for every application. With these changes, the mission should have the control framework in place to safeguard cost recovery revenues.

3.3.5 Travel and Hospitality

As part of the audit of the internal control framework, controls over travel and hospitality expenditures were examined. The audit expected that controls would be in place to ensure that travel and hospitality transactions were processed in compliance with applicable policies and regulations.

As part of our audit, we examine a sample of two travel and one hospitality claims representing 91% and 74%, respectively, of funds claimed to date for FY2008/09. We found that office procedures relating to the administration of travel and hospitality met our expectations.

Appendix A: Hong Kong Mission Organization Chart

Text version: Organizational Chart

Source: Adapted from Immigration Organizational Chart received on-site (Oct. 2008)

Appendix B: Detailed Criteria for the Audit

Objective 1: Governance Framework

The adequacy of the management framework will be assessed with the following criteria:

• Governance structures are in place to ensure that accountabilities are adequately discharged.
• Values and ethics are promoted and reinforced.
• The office is managed to ensure an effective work place for staff to successfully contribute to the work objectives.
• Services delivered by the office reflect the requirements of its clients.
• Processes are in place at the office for the identification and development of risk mitigation strategies.
• Relevant information on results is gathered, used to make decisions and reported.
• The office employs learning and development activities to promote innovation and change management in order to learn from its performance.

Objective 2: Risk Management

The adequacy of risk management practices and procedures associated with the delivery of the immigration program will be assessed against the following criteria:

• Processes are in place to identify, assess, mitigate and monitor risks.
• Management appropriately communicates risk and risk management strategies to key stakeholders.
• Planning and resource allocation considers risk information.

Objective 3: Internal Controls

The adequacy of the internal control framework in place over financial, administrative and operational activities will be assessed under the following lines of enquiry with the following criteria:

• Application processing:
  • Decisions are adequately documented, and required supporting documentation is maintained.
  • Designated and delegated authorities for decisions are appropriate and in compliance with departmental policy.
  • Appropriate controls are in place at the mission to ensure admissibility requirements were met.
• CAIPS Management:
  • Appropriate controls are in place for the management and use of CAIPS user accounts at the mission.
  • Appropriate controls are in place to safeguard CAIPS assets at the mission.
• Controlled Documents:
  • Roles and responsibilities (duties) are appropriate for the custodianship, safeguarding and control of controlled documents.
  • Adequate controls are in place for the custodianship, safeguarding and control of controlled documents.
• Cost Recovery:
  • Roles and responsibilities (duties) assigned and procedures performed are in accordance with departmental policies for cost recovery.
  • Adequate controls are in place to ensure that the physical environment is in place to safeguard the cost-recovery system.
  • An adequate monitoring regime is in place to ensure that controls are working and that funds collected are appropriately and properly accounted for and safeguarded while in the Immigration Section.
• Travel and hospitality:
  • Internal controls should be in place to ensure that travel and hospitality transactions are in compliance with policies and regulations to protect against fraud, financial negligence and other violations of rules and principles.

Appendix C: Management Action Plan

Appendix D: Audit Timeline