Audit of the Immigration Program
Canadian Consulate General – Seattle

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Corporate Review Audit Team conducted an audit of the immigration program at the Canadian Consulate General in Seattle from November 26-30, 2001, using the Audit Guide for Missions Abroad. The Audit Guide had been tested on Vienna—a full-service centre—and required further testing to validate the audit program using a different team at a different site.

Seattle was selected in part because it is a satellite of the Buffalo Regional Program Centre. Buffalo sends immigration cases that warrant an interview to a satellite office. Seattle is one of four such offices, and it processes approximately 1,300 applications per year. Seattle is also one of two Business Immigration Centres in the United States, so it receives business class cases sent to Buffalo that require an interview. Many of the immigrant cases processed in Seattle are business class cases.

In addition to its immigration workload, Seattle receives approximately 13,000 non-immigrant applications a year. These submissions include applications from visitors, students and temporary workers, as well as applications from persons seeking rehabilitation or Minister’s Permits. Seattle’s operations differ sufficiently from those of Vienna that the office provided an excellent opportunity to test the audit program to ensure its validity across different types of missions abroad.

The audit assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of the immigration program’s operations, as well as their compliance with statutory and policy directives. Overall, the audit found that the immigration program in the Consulate General in Seattle is well managed. Seattle’s case processing is efficient, accurate and expeditious, and it fulfils all integrity and compliance requirements. An examination of the cost recovery process did not reveal any evidence of incorrect fees, loss of public funds or misuse of documents. The audit of key documents management did not reveal any evidence of loss of key documents or misuse of the documents.

However, there were a number of areas for improvement that should be addressed at the corporate level. These areas, together with the management responses, are identified below. Specific reference has also been made to the section of the audit report that provides more detail. There are a number of less critical recommendations within the audit that can be resolved by Seattle; these have not been highlighted in the Executive Summary.

• The guidance regarding cost recovery is not up to date.
  
  Recommendation: International Region should finalize the new version of the Cost Recovery Manual as soon as possible (section 6.1).
  
  Management Response: International Region managers agree with the recommendation. It is in their plans to devote resources to this project over the remainder of this fiscal year.

• The cost recovery officer is not provided with adequate training.
  
  Recommendation: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) should consider implementing a cost recovery training program to ensure that all staff members involved in the function have adequate knowledge to fulfil the requirements of their positions (section 6.1).
  
  Management Response: The training delivered by International Region’s Training Section (RIRT) to all new visa officers includes cost recovery policies, malfeasance, risk management and staff supervision—all issues related to the duties of a cost recovery officer. The same topics are covered in a more thorough manner during the Immigration Program Managers course. However, RIRT does not have the technical expertise or the facilities to provide appropriate training on Point-of-Sale (POS+), the cost recovery system.

  RIRT had identified this training need before the audit of our mission in Seattle. A detailed training plan on cost recovery was prepared two years ago. Unfortunately, implementation was delayed due to the need to focus on training related to the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The focus within RIRT will remain on IRPA-related training for the remainder of this fiscal year. RIRT has undertaken to review the module on cost recovery offered to visa officers in order to better prepare these officers to assume the responsibilities of a cost recovery officer.

• Although the cost recovery reports provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) have improved, expanded reports would allow CIC to improve its reconciliation process.
  
  Recommendation: CIC should discuss with DFAIT the possibility of including the general ledger accounts for refunds of prior year expenses in the Integrated Management System (IMS) report (section 6.2).
  
  Management Response: CIC and DFAIT are involved in ongoing discussions dealing with the entire range of issues related to collecting and reporting cost recovery funds at our missions. Unfortunately, the need for consultations and consensus agreement within each of the departments before changes are implemented has resulted in slower progress than anticipated.

  The audit team’s recommendation has been noted and will receive due consideration in the discussions of how best to improve the collection and reporting of CIC cost recovery revenue at our missions.
  

<< Contents| Previous | Next >>