Vienna Mission
Final Audit Report

4.3 PROGRAM INTEGRITY AND COMPLIANCE

Immigrant Programs

The principal audit objective within this scope area was to assess the program’s compliance with selection criteria for economic, family and convention refugee classes pursuant to statutory and policy requirements, as well as the consistency of and support for decisions leading to acceptance or refusal. The audit team also reviewed the quality of verification of information and documents submitted by applicants, the appropriateness of delegated authorities, and the degree of CBO scrutiny of LEPs’ and LES members’ recommendations.

The program at the Vienna Mission generally fulfils all integrity and compliance demands with an overall high quality of achievement, despite heavy workloads and uncommon pressures over the past year. Incorporation of the Belgrade Mission workload caused very considerable disruption, but the Vienna Mission is currently stable, and integrity, compliance and quality do not appear to have suffered.

There is an evident tendency, however, to load up the interview schedules in an attempt to make inroads on backlogs of applications—both applications inherited from the Belgrade office and more recent applications. This inevitably affects the quality of interviews and record keeping for these selection processes. Although the quality of note taking is high and generally offers logical support for decisions, some carelessness was evident in recording key references to documents, and in signing application forms and other documents. We note that there were no cases of inappropriate delegation of authority and support staff members were well supervised.

Overall Data Review

The “total points awarded” comparison (by officer) in economic class selections was based on CAIPS reports generated at National Headquarters (NHQ) and at the Vienna Mission. Some 725 files were compared and the only deviation from an acceptable norm, by one officer, was minimal.

The acceptance rate, by nationality, was compared for 1,307 files. We noted that there was a greater success rate and a lower refusal rate for Croatian clients, as opposed to people of other nationalities from the former Yugoslavia. We note this fact only as a “reminder” to management.

There were no other significant differences between officers in individual selection scoring or in waiver rates, which tend to be small, given the proportion of “out of area” applicants.

Recommendation 4

Initiate a regular review (possibly as part of QA assessment) of the following:

(a) individual officers’ refusal and waiver rates, as well as suitability assessments, in order to maintain consistency; and

(b) indications of possible bias in comparative acceptance and refusal rates by nationality.

Management Responses

(a) Management agrees with this recommendation. This will be done as part of the QA mechanism put into place.

(b) Ongoing QA review will include a nationality component.

Case Analyses

Some 106 economic class cases were examined electronically in CAIPS. These cases were distributed proportionately among the officers currently serving at the Vienna Mission, according to their case load in these categories. There were no negative observations about the quality of the notes or of the decisions made. The notes supported the decisions. Reference was made to the appropriate responsible mission in cases where the application came from outside the Vienna Mission’s territory. Refusals were well drafted. The cases that warranted discretion were properly documented and approvals appropriately recorded.

In the family class, which is a relatively small part of the Vienna Mission’s workload, 24 cases were examined in CAIPS, and both note taking and decisions were of good quality. Refusals were well drafted.

The refugee classes are a large part of the Vienna Mission’s case load. Although they lend themselves less easily to oversight for quality, some commentary is necessary. The 80 cases reviewed in CAIPS were generally quite well set out, with evidence of a logical examination of eligibility and of admissibility. There was evidence of sympathetic analysis of claims and no evidence of inappropriate language. In a significant number of cases, however, there was no direct notation of referral to standard documentation, such as the refugee statement or the D‑20 form setting out the client’s history during the Balkan war years. By inference one could perhaps determine that they had been examined, but too often this fact was not explicit. This renders the case less firmly based. It should be noted that documentary review of the corresponding paper files on site showed that the documents in question were available.

Recommendation 5

Regularly review (possibly as part of a QA assessment) sample refugee class cases for quality.

Management Response

Management agrees with this recommendation. This will be done as part of the QA mechanism put into place.

Documentary Examination

At the site, paper files of most of the cases reviewed in CAIPS were examined. The cases were found to be well documented and supportive of the decisions rendered. With respect to the refugee class cases, there were significant numbers of instances where key documentation was not properly signed by officers, applicants or interpreters. The documents concerned were application forms and applicants’ statements, such as D‑20s. In such cases, re-examinations, which might ensue as a result of future court actions, might render the documentation valueless.

It is to the credit of the Vienna Mission immigration program that risk management was intelligently applied to the large volumes of files it handles. The Vienna Mission preferred to maintain more rather than less documentation. Given the nature of the Balkan wars and the applications that flow from those events, the possibility of subsequent war crimes allegations or other reasons for re-examination in the future suggest that this was an appropriate decision—despite the higher cost in file storage.

Recommendation 6

Regularly review sample paper files to ensure that signatures are being recorded. The fundamental importance of this might be brought home to all staff members by means of a file maintenance training session.

Management Response

Management agrees with this recommendation. This issue has been raised again at officers’ meetings and the importance of having all signatures recorded has been reiterated. Spot checks of files will be done on a regular basis.

Non-Immigrant Programs

Within this scope area, the audit objectives included assessment of the program’s compliance with criteria for visa issuance pursuant to statutory and policy requirements; the consistency of and support for decisions leading to acceptance or refusal; the appropriateness of delegated authorities to issue visas and authorizations, and the degree of CBO scrutiny of LEPs’ and LES members’ recommendations.

The non-immigrant programs at the Vienna Mission are well organized, with highly competent and experienced staff members who were able to take the difficulties of additional and somewhat different workloads from Belgrade in their stride.

The ongoing student workload is not onerous. The number of temporary worker applications is high for the Eastern Europe area missions, though below 1,000 for the year. The visitor visa application load is quite significant, being nearly 10,000 for the year 2000. The last of these three programs is complicated considerably by the high volume of applications from residents or former residents of recent war zones. Considerable caution is exercised—and is fully warranted—in vetting such applications, because some applicants may be war criminals or may show high propensities to overstay or to register refugee claims on entry to Canada. The resultant refusal rate is higher than average—over 24 percent in the year 2000. Refusal rates for the other two programs are both somewhat above average but less so than the visitor refusal rate—9.35 percent for temporary workers and 15.84 percent for students. All of these rates are justifiable and decisions rendered are soundly based for each case refused.

Overall Data Review

Reports generated at NHQ and at the Vienna Mission showed that only appropriately authorized staff entered decisions in visitor, student and temporary worker cases. The newly trained NIO has been given the freedom to make initial decisions on visitor cases, with subsequent oversight by the senior DIO. All student and temporary worker cases are assessed and decided by the senior DIO.

As noted above, the refusal rates are within acceptable parameters for all three programs.

Processing times in many visitor cases are affected by the need to do additional vetting; however, the times are still good and quality does not appear to have suffered. Electronic file records show a consistently high quality of note taking, with full justification for all refusals. The decisions are greatly facilitated by competent, multilingual support staff members who generally conduct pre-interviews and record the key factors that will affect the decision. Care appears to be taken in all cases to ensure applicants have sufficient funding for their visits to Canada.

Case Analyses

More than 40 visitor case files were reviewed on site and documentation was found to be fully appropriate.

Twenty temporary worker case files were also examined and they were fully supportive of the decisions. A minor observation was made that screening of applications from “safe” source countries might warrant more caution, given some history of attempted malfeasance, even from the usually safe Austrian applicants.

Twenty-five student case files were examined and were found to be fully documented.
Extra checking is undertaken in the SUMAC and Field Operations Support System databases when the profiles of applicants warrant this step. Reference to NHQ is made in a significant number of cases, given the recent Balkan wars and the large proportion of applications from that area. Again, a very competent support staff, with appropriate language skills, is pivotal in this aspect of the immigration program’s success.

Recommendation 7

Conduct sample quality monitoring of temporary worker and student applications from time to time to ensure that all files are treated with consistent care.

Management Response

Management agrees with this recommendation. Such monitoring will be part of the QA process.

(Note: In interviews with non-immigrant program staff, it is evident that some members of other programs at the Vienna Mission make occasional representations on behalf of applicants. This is acceptable, but it warrants monitoring by program management.)

Admissibility

The review of admissibility focused on the framework in place to ensure that criminality, security and medical screening is in place and is effective, and that the results do not unduly delay the processing of applications.

Criminality and Security

There is considerable care taken in security screening in Vienna. This care is prompted in large part by the Balkan wars and the exodus of many persons whose history might render them inadmissible. (section removed) and Field Operations Support System databases are consulted routinely for those who fit the profiles. Numerous cases are referred to the Case Management Branch for further checking and opinions. This situation is good, but the responses from NHQ are subject to delays, which causes considerable frustration on the part of case officers who wish to process cases with more dispatch.

There is a tendency on the part of some case officers to refer cases perhaps too readily to the ICO for a further opinion on security matters. There is no inherent value in this tendency, as case officers are equally, or more, informed on the security related issues growing out of the Balkan wars and are ultimately responsible for security decisions for individual cases.

Recommendation 8

Management should encourage case officers to use their own judgment in security cases, when they have the acceptable background to make selection and security decisions.

Management Response

Management agrees that officers should make their own security decisions. That now occurs in almost all cases. Because of the complexity and importance of the interrelated security and war crimes issues, however, we believe it remains prudent to have a second experienced officer review certain prescribed files.

Medical Admissibility

The MO at the Vienna Mission is responsible for approximately 100 DMPs in 15 countries. In addition to Vienna, medical assessments and X-rays are submitted via immigration programs in Bucharest, Berlin and Kyiv. The MO is supported by three LES positions and a contract physician for X-ray assessments. More difficult cases are referred to specialists. On an annual basis, approximately 18,000 assessments are carried out. Routine cases (not requiring further investigation) are assessed expeditiously, normally within five to 10 days. It is noted that in the last few months of 2000, routine medical cases were assessed in one to three days.

Since arriving in August 2000, the MO has undertaken a number of initiatives to improve the quality and efficiency of medical assessments. Priorities are improving X-ray quality and reducing the number of “furtherances.” The reduction in furtherances (15 to 20 percent of cases) is being achieved by introducing guidelines to DMPs on the additional investigations required for each type of problem case before assessment can be considered completed. The MO monitors patterns of poorly performing DMPs and also conducts regular area trips to assess DMPs’ knowledge, performance and working environments.

Overall, the Medical Section functions well and appropriately supports the program.

<< Contents| Previous | Next >>