Home
Solutions
Products
Pricing
Resources
Request Demo
Start Free
Menu Search Account

LegiStorm

Get LegiStorm App Visit Product Demo Website
» Get LegiStorm App
» Get LegiStorm Pro Free Demo
StateStorm

Weekly Updates

LegiStorm is constantly adding new information on the people, places and reports in our database. In the past week, LegiStorm added:

  • 376 new people
  • 171 new organizations
  • 408 new photos
  • 1234 job history records for people in our database
  • 653 education records for people in our database
  • 1467 contact addresses, emails and URLs (LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.)
  • 3 new people through the revolving door
  • 109 new policy reports
  • 43 new trips to our privately funded travel database
  • 629 new personal financial disclosures
  • 15148 new press releases
  • 11 new town halls
  • 25 new hearings

Caught Our Eye Rss

» More from Caught Our Eye
» More from our DevBlog

International Affairs: Processing Soviet Refugees

  Premium   Download PDF Now (11 pages)
Report Type Reports and Testimonies
Report Date March 30, 1989
Report No. T-NSIAD-89-21
Subject
Summary:

GAO discussed its review of U.S. processing of Soviet refugees. GAO found that: (1) the United States admitted over 20,000 Soviet refugees in fiscal year 1988, and that number was expected to increase; (2) the Administration requested about $85 million in supplemental funds to support about 18,000 additional refugee allocations; (3) the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied from 10 to 13 percent of Soviet refugee applications at the embassies GAO visited; (4) INS and consular officials believed that most Soviet applicants were economic, rather than political refugees; (5) most applicants rejected humanitarian parole status because they could not obtain the required affidavits, or lacked relatives who were able to support them financially; (6) in 1988, INS began adjudicating Soviet refugee applications on a case-by-case basis; (7) INS inconsistently applied its adjudication procedures, as evidenced by the high rate of reversals on appeal; and (8) INS cited inexperience, inadequate training, work loads, and lack of evidence supporting claims as reasons for the inconsistent adjudications.

« Return to search Government Accountability Office reports

HomeAbout Us Contact UsPrivacy PolicyTerms of UseJoin Us
© LegiStorm
LegiStorm
2101 L St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 360-4172 / congress@legistorm.com