{"id":2582,"date":"2009-10-27T21:22:21","date_gmt":"2009-10-27T21:22:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.againstchildtrafficking.org\/?p=2582"},"modified":"2011-09-28T21:25:18","modified_gmt":"2011-09-28T21:25:18","slug":"wikileaks-uganda-adoption-fraud","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wikileaks-uganda-adoption-fraud\/","title":{"rendered":"Wikileaks: Uganda – Adoption Fraud"},"content":{"rendered":"

Source:\u00a0 http:\/\/wikileaks.org<\/a>\u00a0
\nDate: 2009-10-27<\/p>\n

F) ADOPTION FRAUD<\/div>\n

\u00b622. (U) Ugandan law restricts a foreign citizen’s ability to adopt a
\nUgandan child, and the adoption process is complicated. Ugandan law
\nrequires that foreign adoptive parents be physically present in
\nUganda and foster the child for three years before an adoption is
\nexecuted in Uganda. However, Ugandan High Court judges have
\nexercised discretion granting legal guardianship in lieu of
\nadoption, permitting non-resident prospective adoptive parents to
\ntake the child out of Uganda and reside permanently in another
\ncountry. This has led to an increase in the number of IR 4 cases
\nprocessed by Post.<\/p>\n

\u00b623. (U) Post has encountered legal guardianship cases where the
\nchild did not appear to be an orphan as defined by the INA, but the
\ntrue circumstances of the child were openly disclosed during the
\ncourt proceedings and visa application process. Fraud was not a
\nfactor in these cases, but the children clearly did not qualify for
\nan IR 4 immigrant visa.<\/p>\n

\u00b624. (U) Recently, Post has also encountered a small number of cases
\nwhere fraud was a factor. The biological parents were reportedly
\ndeceased, but field investigations and\/or DNA testing confirmed that
\none or both parents were still living. In two of the cases, the
\nclaimed deceased biological mother had presented herself in court
\nproceedings and at the visa interview as an aunt. These cases
\ngenerally do not involve traditional orphanages, but rather children
\nconnected to prospective adoptive parents through charities and
\nchild sponsorship programs. The biological parent(s) often reached
\nout to the charity originally claiming the child was an orphan with
\nthe belief that this would make the child eligible for charity
\nsupport and sponsored education. Subsequently, American financial
\nsponsors would inquire about possible adoption and the biological
\nparent(s) continued with the false information regarding the true
\nhistory of the child.<\/p>\n

\u00b625. (U) Given the difficulties and false information that Post has
\nencountered with IR 4 visa cases, Post relies increasingly more upon
\nfield investigations to verify orphan status. This has
\nunfortunately delayed the processing of IR 4 visa applications, but
\nPost has found that the Ugandan authorities have no oversight
\nmechanism in place or means to verify the orphan status of a child.
\nIt has also been widely reported in the media that the judiciary is
\nknown as one of the most corrupt institutions in Uganda.<\/p>\n

\u00b626. (U) Very recently, Post has encountered possible cases of child
\ntrafficking. One particular case involved an American family who
\nshowed the adjudicating officer a list of fees charged by the
\norphanage to adopt a Ugandan child. While Post is aware of the high
\ncosts of adoption abroad, the fees were exorbitant (upwards of
\n$15,000 directly to the orphanage and not including travel fares.)
\nOne fee was for a “donation” to the orphanage, which the Consular
\nOfficer felt could be construed as child buying. The case was sent
\nto USCIS Nairobi for adjudication as it was considered no longer
\n“clearly approvable”.<\/p>\n

\u00b627. (U) Currently, Post is in the middle of a large scale
\ninvestigation involving a Ugandan branch of an American adoption
\norganization. During the course of interviews with three separate
\nfamilies, it became clear to the adjudicating officer that the home
\nin Uganda was presenting false documents. A total of six children
\nwere being adopted and about 11 death certificates for the
\nbiological parents of these children were presented at the time of
\nthe interview. Each of the death certificates indicated the exact
\nsame occupation for the parents and the exact same manner of death.
\nWhile this is entirely possible and could be mere coincidence, Post
\nfelt obligated to investigate further.<\/p>\n

\u00b628. (U) Post’s FSNI found out that the director of the home was
\nactually forging documents to present to local government officials,
\nwho then used them to prepare authentic documents that were
\npresented to the Consular Officer during adjudication. When further
\nquestioned, the director stated the organization is not yet
\nregistered with the Government of Uganda and that the home does not
\nactually have legal guardianship over any of the children living
\nthere. He also admitted to presenting false documents to the
\nConsular Section. In-depth field investigations are now required,
\nconsuming most of Post’s FSNI’s time. These cases are still under
\ninvestigation and will be sent to USCIS Nairobi shortly.<\/p>\n

\u00b629. (U) Post is also preparing a stand-alone fraud cable on this
\nissue to send to CI.<\/p>\n

Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
\n09KAMPALA1241 2009-10-27 09:12 2011-08-30 01:44 UNCLASSIFIED\/\/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Kampala
\nVZCZCXYZ0009
\nPP RUEHWEB<\/p>\n

DE RUEHKM #1241\/01 3000912
\nZNR UUUUU ZZH (CCY ADCC6B26 MSI7708-695)
\nP 270912Z OCT 09
\nFM AMEMBASSY KAMPALA
\nTO RUEHC\/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1890
\nRUEHPNH\/NVC PORTSMOUTH
\nINFO ALAFD\/ALL AFRICAN DIP POSTS COLLECTIVE
\nUNCLAS KAMPALA 001241<\/p>\n

SENSITIVE
\nSIPDIS<\/p>\n

C O R R E C T E D COPY CAPTION<\/p>\n

DEPT FOR CA\/FPP, DHS FOR CIS\/FDNS<\/p>\n

E.O. 12958: N\/A
\nTAGS: KFRD CVIS CPAS CMGT ASEC UG
\nSUBJECT: FRAUD SUMMARY – UGANDA<\/p>\n

(A) COUNTRY CONDITIONS<\/p>\n

\u00b61. (U) Uganda is a country in political and economic transition. It
\nis estimated that 31% of its 30 million people live below the
\npoverty line, and in northern Uganda, over 70% of the population
\nlives below the poverty line. A high unemployment rate and the lack
\nof a living wage for many Ugandans fuel a desire to seek better
\nopportunities in the United States and elsewhere. Corruption is
\nendemic, and document and other types of fraud are common but
\ngenerally unsophisticated. The vast majority of Post’s nonimmigrant
\nvisa (NIV) applicants are Ugandan, and the most common type of fraud
\nencountered is the use of counterfeit, altered or fraudulently
\nobtained documents. Post’s current assessment of the level of fraud
\nencountered locally is high, but generally unsophisticated, with the
\nexception of Ugandans and non-Ugandans obtaining genuine passports
\nin false identities.<\/p>\n

\u00b62. (U) Uganda also serves as a transit point for migrants from other
\ncountries. Thousands of Indian nationals reside in Uganda, active
\nin business and other sectors. Some Indian nationals have lived in
\nUganda for decades and are well-established professionals. Others
\nare recent immigrants who entered Uganda as tourists, obtained
\ntemporary work permits, and now seek to emigrate to Europe or the
\nUnited States. Past and ongoing conflicts and\/or economic
\ninstability in neighboring countries such as the Democratic Republic
\nof the Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea provide a
\nsteady pool of other third-country nationals seeking to emigrate to
\nthe United States. Most encounters with these nationalities are
\nlimited to following-to-join asylee (Visas 92) and refugee (Visas
\n93) beneficiaries.<\/p>\n

(B) NIV FRAUD<\/p>\n

Tourist\/Business Visas<\/p>\n

\u00b63. (U) In processing tourist and business visa applications, Post
\nfinds that the visa interview is the most effective means to
\nadjudicate these cases. Many Ugandan business and tourist travelers
\nhave well-documented travel histories to Europe and\/or the United
\nStates. Ugandans are limited to two year B1\/B2 visas by U.S.
\nreciprocity, and similar visa validity to the United Kingdom and
\nother European countries. This requires that they apply for visas
\nevery few years. Applicants who present new passports or passports
\nthat demonstrate limited regional travel are interviewed in greater
\ndetail. Suspect letters of invitation and support, counterfeit bank
\nstatements, and inflated claims of income are common.<\/p>\n

\u00b64. (U) During the reporting period, several B1\/B2 applicants were
\nrefused for fraud and misrepresentation after investigations found
\nthey had presented counterfeit employment letters and other
\ndocuments. In many cases, Post does not verify documentation as
\ninformation obtained during the visa interview clearly indicates the
\napplicant does not overcome 214(b) regardless of the validity of
\nsupporting documents. On occasion, Post has had success checking
\nprevious visa records to ascertain if the claimed signatory on a
\nletter of support or employment has also applied for a U.S. visa in
\nthe past. Post reviews the signatory’s previous visa application to
\nascertain if the signature on a letter of support or employment
\nappears genuine. Such checks also provide independently verifiable
\nphone numbers for claimed employers, and phone calls sometimes
\nreveal that the letters of support or employment are forged.<\/p>\n

\u00b65. (U) Similarly, Post also has good success identifying the
\nindividual in the United States whom the applicant seeks to visit.
\nA common trend is that the applicant is an extended family member of
\nsomeone residing in the U.S., and checks of previous visa records
\nregularly indicate that the inviting individual entered the U.S. in
\nrecent years on a B1\/B2 visa and remained. Such information is very
\nuseful when reviewing the current applicant’s own ties to Uganda and
\nwhether or not they are also an intending immigrant.<\/p>\n

\u00b66. (U) Post’s most recent B1\/B2 visa validation study found an
\noverstay rate of 4.5 percent, with a 2.5 percent margin of error.
\nPost assumes from the receipt of I-730 following-to-join asylee
\npetitions that many of these overstays obtained asylum in the United
\nStates.<\/p>\n

\u00b67. (U) In one recent fraud case adjudicated at Post, biometrics
\nassisted in discovering an applicant using a second identity to
\nobtain an NIV. He had a strong history of travel to the U.S. and
\nwas using a diplomatic passport, so his visa was submitted for
\nchecks and eventual issuance. When the Facial Recognition (FR)
\ncheck came back, it was clear that he had traveled to the U.S. under
\nan alias. He was called back into the embassy and questioned, and
\nadmitted using two different identities to travel to the U.S.<\/p>\n

\u00b68. (U) Post just witnessed another similar case where a young lady
\nhad applied for visas under three different names, but the
\nadjudicating officer was not aware of this until the FR came back
\nshowing the prior cases (and refusals).<\/p>\n

\u00b69. (U) Another similar case involved a young lady who claimed she
\nhad changed her name when still a minor to be able to retake a test
\nin school. She used the name for the better part of the next 20
\nyears and had an NIV refusal under the new alias. She then changed
\nher name back to her original name and reapplied for a visa under
\nher original name and the only way Post was able to discern that she
\nhad two aliases was through FR.<\/p>\n

\u00b610. (U) Another vehicle many applicants tried to use over the busy
\nsummer months was that of the Uganda North American Association
\n(UNAA) convention held in Chicago, IL in conjunction with the U.S.
\n(Illinois) Uganda Trade and Investment Forum also held in Chicago,
\nIL. FPP ran a text search on UNAA and of 30 cases since 2003, 17
\nreturned from their travel, 2 claimed asylum and 11 overstayed or
\nbecame LPRs. The results of this search indicated an approximately
\n37% overstay rate. Applicants registered online or in person at a
\nsatellite office located in Kampala for the convention. They
\nreceived a letter from the organizers of the convention: Lt. Frank
\nMusisi and Noah Bukenya. Many of those letters stated that UNAA
\nwould pay for their accommodation and\/or travel. Obtaining this
\ndocument fraudulently was not difficult for applicants. They often
\ndid not know the name of the convention nor how they wanted to
\nparticipate in the convention. In this case, Post would not issue a
\nvisa. Many people also tried to obtain visas under the guise of
\nentertainers or press. These people were scrutinized more heavily
\nand were expected to have either the proper petition or credentials
\nbefore Post would issue.<\/p>\n

Student Visas<\/p>\n

\u00b611. (U) In a previous reporting period, Post noted a number of
\nstudent athletes had secured partial scholarships to U.S. colleges.
\nChecks of academic transcripts presented by a number of these
\nstudent athletes disclosed that the transcripts had been altered and
\na number of the applicants were refused for misrepresentation.
\nDuring this reporting period, Post has noted a decrease in F1 visa
\napplications by student athletes. The typical student applicant
\nwhere fraud has been documented is from a poor-to-middle class
\nbackground, presents a suspect bank statement and claims the sponsor
\nis an uncle or other more distant relative. The presentation of
\ncounterfeit and altered academic transcripts is also common. In
\norder to combat student visa fraud, Post seeks to verify suspect
\nacademic transcripts with the Ugandan National Examinations Board
\n(UNEB), secondary schools and Ugandan universities.<\/p>\n

\u00b612. (U) In addition, Post often requests that financial sponsors
\nattend the visa interview. Given circumstances in Uganda, it is
\ncommon that one or both biological parents of a student applicant
\nmay be deceased and that the applicant claims to have been raised by
\nan uncle or guardian. The term “uncle” is used interchangeably
\nbetween individuals who may be paternal or maternal uncles, or even
\nnon-relatives who reportedly provide financial assistance to the
\napplicant. Independent interviews with financial sponsors of F1
\nstudent applicants are very useful in determining the true
\nrelationship with the applicant, and the degree of support that the
\nsponsor will provide for the applicant’s tuition in the United
\nStates. Sometimes an “uncle” called for an interview cannot name
\nthe applicant’s immediate family members, or where the applicant
\nattended secondary school.<\/p>\n

\u00b613. (U) Over the past several years, there have been frequent
\nreports of malfeasance and academic transcript fraud within Uganda’s
\nlargest university, Makerere University. Officials at Makerere have
\nstated that they plan to introduce more secure methods of recording
\ngrades and issuing transcripts, but these changes are still pending.
\nSimilarly, officials of the Ugandan National Education Board
\n(UNEB), responsible for the administration of Uganda’s O and A level
\nsecondary school examinations, have also stated that future national
\nexamination certificates may contain more advanced security
\nfeatures.<\/p>\n

\u00b614. (U) More recently, Post has seen a significant increase in
\napplicants applying to community colleges in rural or remote U.S.
\ncities. There have not been any confirmed cases of fraud with regard
\nto community colleges, but the vast majority of those applying to
\nthese schools were below average applicants. They often spoke very
\npoor English (a consideration in a country where English is an
\nofficial language), had very poor to weak economic ties to the
\nperson sponsoring them, and rarely knew the difference between an
\nAssociate’s Degree and a Bachelor’s Degree.<\/p>\n

\u00b615. (U) There were also a number of students currently enrolled in
\nundergraduate programs at universities in Uganda who then wanted to
\ntransfer to Community Colleges to work on Associate’s degrees. For
\nseveral applicants, this was an attractive method to gain entry to
\nthe U.S., as many had other family members already studying and\/or
\nresiding in nearby cities.
\nReligious Worker Visas<\/p>\n

\u00b616. (U) Applications for R1 religious worker visas are less frequent
\nthan B1\/B2s, although active cooperation exists between religious
\norganizations in Uganda and the United States. A number of B1\/B2
\napplicants encountered by Post are religious ministers engaging in
\nevangelical tours of the U.S. as permitted under B1\/B2
\nclassification, and not taking an appointment with one church.<\/p>\n

\u00b617. (U) Post has noticed an increase in American sponsors retracting
\nsponsorship of religious workers for a number of reasons, but
\nreligious workers are under more scrutiny than in previous years.<\/p>\n

K3 Spouse of American Citizen Visas<\/p>\n

\u00b618. (U) Post encounters suspect K3 visa applications that generally
\nfit into two categories. The first is a Ugandan female applicant
\nwho met the American petitioner over the Internet. Typically, the
\nUgandan is unemployed. The couple exchange E-mails for several
\nmonths then the American travels to Uganda and stays for several
\nweeks. During the visit, the couple marries and the American
\nsubsequently files I-130 and I-129F petitions in the United States.
\nThe other category often seen is a male spouse of a female refugee
\nwho was resettled in the United States. Upon becoming a naturalized
\nAmerican citizen, the female travels to Uganda and weds a refugee
\nliving in Uganda to whom she was introduced through a friend or
\nextended family member. In both scenarios, the petitioners and
\nbeneficiaries have never met in person until the petitioner arrived
\nin Uganda for the wedding. The marriage certificates in such cases
\nare generally genuine, although in many circumstances the petitions
\nare returned to USCIS for recommended revocation, as it appears the
\nmarriage was entered into for the sole purpose of facilitating the
\nbeneficiary’s immigration to the United States.<\/p>\n

(C) IV FRAUD<\/p>\n

\u00b619. (U) Post assumed processing of immigrant visas for adoption
\ncases in October 2006. All other immigrant visa applications are
\nprocessed by American Embassy Nairobi. Post assists Nairobi with
\nverifying marriage certificates and other documents, such as birth
\nand death certificates and school records for immigrant visa cases
\nwhen necessary.<\/p>\n

(D) DV FRAUD<\/p>\n

\u00b620. (U) All Diversity Visa cases are adjudicated by U.S. Embassy
\nNairobi. Most diversity visa inquiries received by Post involve
\nmembers of the public who have been victims of Internet scams
\npromising individuals U.S. visas in exchange for fees. Post warns
\nthe public of these scams when advertising the annual kick-off of
\nthe Diversity Visa Lottery. Post issued a press release in
\nresponse to one diversity visa scam that targeted high level Ugandan
\nofficials, who reportedly paid around USD500 to the scam artists.
\nPost also assists Embassy Nairobi in verifying certificates
\npresented in support of diversity visa cases.<\/p>\n

(E) ACS & PASSPORT FRAUD
\n\u00b621. (U) Post has not encountered any recent ACS or passport fraud,
\nalthough it occasionally receives passport applications for adults
\nwho have never been documented as American citizens and are unable
\nto provide credible evidence of their identity and birth in the U.S.
\nIf questions arise regarding the biological relationship between
\nthe American citizen and a Consular Report of Birth Abroad
\napplicant, DNA testing is usually required.<\/p>\n

(F) ADOPTION FRAUD<\/p>\n

\u00b622. (U) Ugandan law restricts a foreign citizen’s ability to adopt a
\nUgandan child, and the adoption process is complicated. Ugandan law
\nrequires that foreign adoptive parents be physically present in
\nUganda and foster the child for three years before an adoption is
\nexecuted in Uganda. However, Ugandan High Court judges have
\nexercised discretion granting legal guardianship in lieu of
\nadoption, permitting non-resident prospective adoptive parents to
\ntake the child out of Uganda and reside permanently in another
\ncountry. This has led to an increase in the number of IR 4 cases
\nprocessed by Post.<\/p>\n

\u00b623. (U) Post has encountered legal guardianship cases where the
\nchild did not appear to be an orphan as defined by the INA, but the
\ntrue circumstances of the child were openly disclosed during the
\ncourt proceedings and visa application process. Fraud was not a
\nfactor in these cases, but the children clearly did not qualify for
\nan IR 4 immigrant visa.<\/p>\n

\u00b624. (U) Recently, Post has also encountered a small number of cases
\nwhere fraud was a factor. The biological parents were reportedly
\ndeceased, but field investigations and\/or DNA testing confirmed that
\none or both parents were still living. In two of the cases, the
\nclaimed deceased biological mother had presented herself in court
\nproceedings and at the visa interview as an aunt. These cases
\ngenerally do not involve traditional orphanages, but rather children
\nconnected to prospective adoptive parents through charities and
\nchild sponsorship programs. The biological parent(s) often reached
\nout to the charity originally claiming the child was an orphan with
\nthe belief that this would make the child eligible for charity
\nsupport and sponsored education. Subsequently, American financial
\nsponsors would inquire about possible adoption and the biological
\nparent(s) continued with the false information regarding the true
\nhistory of the child.<\/p>\n

\u00b625. (U) Given the difficulties and false information that Post has
\nencountered with IR 4 visa cases, Post relies increasingly more upon
\nfield investigations to verify orphan status. This has
\nunfortunately delayed the processing of IR 4 visa applications, but
\nPost has found that the Ugandan authorities have no oversight
\nmechanism in place or means to verify the orphan status of a child.
\nIt has also been widely reported in the media that the judiciary is
\nknown as one of the most corrupt institutions in Uganda.<\/p>\n

\u00b626. (U) Very recently, Post has encountered possible cases of child
\ntrafficking. One particular case involved an American family who
\nshowed the adjudicating officer a list of fees charged by the
\norphanage to adopt a Ugandan child. While Post is aware of the high
\ncosts of adoption abroad, the fees were exorbitant (upwards of
\n$15,000 directly to the orphanage and not including travel fares.)
\nOne fee was for a “donation” to the orphanage, which the Consular
\nOfficer felt could be construed as child buying. The case was sent
\nto USCIS Nairobi for adjudication as it was considered no longer
\n“clearly approvable”.<\/p>\n

\u00b627. (U) Currently, Post is in the middle of a large scale
\ninvestigation involving a Ugandan branch of an American adoption
\norganization. During the course of interviews with three separate
\nfamilies, it became clear to the adjudicating officer that the home
\nin Uganda was presenting false documents. A total of six children
\nwere being adopted and about 11 death certificates for the
\nbiological parents of these children were presented at the time of
\nthe interview. Each of the death certificates indicated the exact
\nsame occupation for the parents and the exact same manner of death.
\nWhile this is entirely possible and could be mere coincidence, Post
\nfelt obligated to investigate further.<\/p>\n

\u00b628. (U) Post’s FSNI found out that the director of the home was
\nactually forging documents to present to local government officials,
\nwho then used them to prepare authentic documents that were
\npresented to the Consular Officer during adjudication. When further
\nquestioned, the director stated the organization is not yet
\nregistered with the Government of Uganda and that the home does not
\nactually have legal guardianship over any of the children living
\nthere. He also admitted to presenting false documents to the
\nConsular Section. In-depth field investigations are now required,
\nconsuming most of Post’s FSNI’s time. These cases are still under
\ninvestigation and will be sent to USCIS Nairobi shortly.<\/p>\n

\u00b629. (U) Post is also preparing a stand-alone fraud cable on this
\nissue to send to CI.<\/p>\n

(G) USE OF DNA TESTING<\/p>\n

\u00b630. (U) Post frequently advises applicants of the availability of
\nDNA testing to verify claimed relationships in following-to-join
\nasylee (Visas 92) and refugee (Visas 93) cases. Post also sees DNA
\ntesting used in support of Consular Report of Birth Abroad
\napplications. All collection of DNA was conducted by a laboratory
\ntechnician at the office of Post’s Panel Physician. As an
\nadditional measure, one of Post’s local employees is required to
\nobserve collection of the DNA and sealing of the specimen envelope
\nbefore it is forwarded to a U.S. laboratory for testing.<\/p>\n

\u00b631. (U) With the new guidance issued by the Department, Post will be
\nchanging its procedure to begin on-site DNA sample collection. Some
\ndetails on fee and sample collection must still be resolved with the
\npanel physicians’ office, so DNA collection is currently on hold
\nuntil agreement is reached.<\/p>\n

(H) ASYLUM & OTHER DHS BENEFIT FRAUD<\/p>\n

\u00b632. (U) In adjudicating Visas 92 following-to-join asylee cases,
\nPost has observed a number of asylum claims that lack credibility.
\nOfficers sometimes encounter similar claims that appear to have been
\nused previously and recycled by multiple petitioners. Post has
\nencountered a case where the Government of Uganda funded the
\napplicant’s travel to the U.S. and facilitated their visa
\napplication with a Diplomatic Note, and the applicant successfully
\nclaimed asylum. Post also encounters cases whereby the petitioner
\nin the U.S. claimed persecution by the Central Government, yet when
\nthe following-to-join family members appear for interviews, it is
\nsometimes discovered that the relative who has been providing for
\ntheir care is a Central Government employee in good standing. Post
\nalso encounters a number of Legal Permanent Residents returning to
\nUganda, and the information often presented indicates that they
\ngained LPR status via the asylum process.<\/p>\n

\u00b633. (U) Post encounters a significant amount of relationship fraud
\nin processing Visas 92 cases, and utilizes DNA testing, field
\ninvestigations and interviews when adjudicating the cases. Almost
\nall Ugandan birth certificates submitted in support of Visas 92
\ncases indicate the births of the following-to-join family members
\nwere registered in the weeks just before the petitioner traveled to
\nthe U.S. (contradicting the common claim by petitioners that they
\ndid not consider asylum until after their arrival in the U.S.). In
\nother cases, the births were recorded after the petitioner had
\nremained in the U.S., and in preparation for an I-730 filing. Many
\nVisas 92 cases involve children from multiple relationships, and
\npolygamy is practiced in accordance with local customs. Many
\nUgandan families care for nieces and nephews who were never formally
\nadopted, and petitioners often falsely claim these relatives as
\nbiological or legally adopted children. Post has started to receive
\nan increasing number of Visas 92 Eritrean cases, and a small number
\nof Rwandan cases. The Rwandan cases have involved fraudulent
\nadoption claims for multiple beneficiaries.<\/p>\n

\u00b634. (U) In possible response to its request for adoption
\ndocumentation, Post is seeing more and more “adopted” beneficiaries.
\nThis has led to an increase in investigations to verify the
\nauthenticity of the adoption documents.<\/p>\n

\u00b635. (U) Post also processes Visas 93 following-to-join refugee
\ncases. Historically, these cases involved middle-aged, Somali males
\nwith no evidence of identity or the claimed relationship seeking to
\njoin wives granted refugee status in the United States. Post’s
\nholdings of these types of cases have been reduced significantly.
\nInstead, Post is now encountering increasing numbers of K3, spouse
\nof American citizen cases of Somali males living as refugees in
\nUganda married to American citizens during short two-week visits.<\/p>\n

(I) ALIEN SMUGGLING, TRAFFICKING, ORGANIZED CRIME, & TERRORIST
\nTRAVEL<\/p>\n

\u00b636. (SBU) Uganda’s location within East Africa and its porous and
\nremote borders can be exploited by Al Qaeda and other terrorist
\norganizations as well as organized crime syndicates. While the
\nsection documented no cases of fraud related to organized crime or
\nterrorist travel during the reporting period, Uganda is a transit
\npoint for such travel. The Ugandan government regularly detains
\nindividuals suspected of involvement with terrorist associations
\nand, during a previous reporting period, deported two South African
\nnationals with reported terrorism links. Two other suspected
\nterrorists were arrested in Germany, and were allegedly planning
\ntravel to Uganda.<\/p>\n

\u00b637. (U) Post communication with airlines indicates that the most
\ncommon trend encountered at Entebbe Airport is imposters who use
\nborrowed or stolen documents to attempt to board flights to Europe.
\nIn most cases, the suspected imposters are of Somali origin. In
\nthis reporting period, airline officials reported two incidents
\ninvolving Somalis presenting fraudulent I-551 cards. One involved a
\nfemale Somali passenger traveling alone, the other case involved two
\nSomali males accompanied by a Legal Permanent Resident of Somali
\norigin who attempted to assist\/facilitate the accompanying mala fide
\npassengers through the airport check-in process. Individuals using
\nfraudulent documents obtained in other countries also pose
\nchallenges to airlines. Iraqi nationals have been intercepted
\nposing as Turkish tourists, and individuals using photo-substituted
\nSouth African passports have also been intercepted. Afghan
\nnationals were also intercepted attempting travel on fraudulent
\nCanadian visas. According to contacts working at the Entebbe
\nAirport, corrupt immigration, airline, and document clearing staff
\nhave assisted mala fide passengers to board aircraft bound for
\nEurope.<\/p>\n

\u00b638. (U) Recently, three travelers were stopped at Entebbe
\nInternational Airport for traveling on fake French Passports.<\/p>\n

(J) DS CRIMINAL FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS<\/p>\n

\u00b639. (U) In cases of criminal fraud, the Regional Security Office
\n(RSO) collects as much evidence as possible and refers the case to
\nthe police. In many circumstances, the subjects may be arrested
\nbut, if released on bail, the subjects never appear in court. Post
\nhas had success with cases where a private firm or Ugandan
\ngovernment entity actively seeks prosecution of the subject; for
\nexample, cases where applicants presented counterfeit government
\nidentification cards or employment letters.<\/p>\n

(K) HOST COUNTRY PASSPORT, IDENTITY DOCUMENTS, & CIVIL REGISTRY<\/p>\n

\u00b640. (U) As noted above, the most common type of fraud encountered is
\nuse of suspect documents, such as bank statements, letters of
\nemployment or support and academic transcripts. A lack of internal
\ncontrols also makes acquisition of genuine but fraudulently obtained
\nbirth and marriage certificates a fairly simple process. A
\n“declarant” for a birth certificate is not required to be a family
\nmember or authorized legal representative, and only has to attest to
\nthe validity of the information presented when applying for a birth
\ncertificate from the Registrar’s Office. This makes genuine birth
\ncertificates based upon fraudulent information readily available.
\nIn turn, the birth certificate may then be used to support a Ugandan
\npassport application.<\/p>\n

\u00b641. (U) Reports of corruption within Uganda’s immigration service
\nand a lack of internal controls indicate that Ugandan passports are
\nobtainable for those seeking to change identities or who have no
\nreal claim to Ugandan citizenship. In the past, Post encountered
\nabout one applicant every three months who has previously applied
\nfor a visa in Kampala or another Post under a different identity.
\nThese encounters have now decreased, most likely because of the
\ndeterrent effect of biometric procedures. In addition, Post also
\nbrings cases of Ugandans with multiple identities and passports to
\nthe attention of the Director of Uganda’s immigration service when
\nencountered. This action serves to facilitate investigation of the
\nsubject holding multiple identities, as well as counters malfeasance
\nwithin the Ugandan immigration service. Passports currently issued
\nby Ugandan immigration authorities are machine-readable and
\nphoto-digitized. Previously issued laminated passports are valid
\nuntil their designated expiration dates.<\/p>\n

\u00b642. (U) Post has seen an increase in Ugandans with more than one
\nvalid passport. This issue has been raised with the Director of
\nUganda’s immigration service. It remains to be seen how this will
\nchange in the future.<\/p>\n

(L) COOPERATION WITH HOST GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES<\/p>\n

\u00b643. (U) Host government, local-level officials, and religious
\norganizations generally cooperate when Post seeks to verify civil
\ndocuments, but corruption does impact Post’s ability to combat
\nfraud. The Director of Immigration has participated in a USG-funded
\nborder security program in the U.S., and in meetings with Post
\nofficials has expressed a willingness to investigate Ugandan
\npassport fraud and malfeasance. It remains to be seen whether he
\nwill be successful at these efforts.<\/p>\n

\u00b644. (U) Recently, Post’s FSNI was denied the verification service
\nprovided free of charge to foreign missions. A mid-level official
\nwithin the Registrar’s Office demanded a fee for the service. Post
\nwas surprised to hear this and pursued the matter only to find that
\nthis officer was skirting established protocol. A subsequent letter
\nfrom the Registrar-General confirmed that no fee was to be charged
\nto foreign missions for authenticating documentation.<\/p>\n

(M) AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN<\/p>\n

\u00b645. (U) In MONTH of this year, a Consular associate was fired for
\nmalfeasance. She admitted to accepting money from outside entities
\nin exchange for FILL IN. The entire staff was warned about this
\npractice and it seemed as though the issue was resolved. In
\nSeptember, the Acting Consular Chief received a call from an
\nAmerican citizen in the U.S., stating that she was aware of a fraud
\nscheme and wanted to notify Post about it.<\/p>\n

\u00b646. (U) The Acting Consular Chief went to the RSO with the
\ninformation obtained and the RSO began an investigation. It turned
\nout that the fired Consular Section employee had opened a visa
\n“coaching” business and was supplying paying customers with
\nfraudulent documentation and false narratives to present at the time
\nof their interviews. She was also claiming that she still worked in
\nthe Consular Section.<\/p>\n

\u00b647. (U) RSO in conjunction with local police raided the offices and
\nprivate residences of the suspect and her chief accomplice. Post is
\ncurrently knee-deep in confiscated evidence and has a TDY DS
\ninvestigator arriving to assist the RSO in sorting through and
\ndocumenting the evidence. The primary suspect (the fired Consular
\nemployee) and her chief accomplice are currently in custody and RSO
\nis working very closely with Ugandan police and judicial officials
\nto press maximum charges against them.<\/p>\n

\u00b648. (U) There is concern that at least one current employee may be
\ninvolved in this scam as well. RSO has investigated two employees.
\nOne was cleared of any suspicion, but the other has had significant
\ncontact with the primary suspect. RSO has been unable to find any
\nhard evidence against this employee but she is aware she is under
\nprobation. She was temporarily suspended from work pending RSO
\napproval to allow her return to the Section.<\/p>\n

\u00b649. (U) Currently, RSO is continuing its investigation and Post has<\/p>\n

(N) STAFFING AND TRAINING<\/p>\n

\u00b650. (U) Post’s Fraud Prevention Unit consists of a Consular Officer
\nassigned the role of Fraud Prevention Manager. As a two-officer
\nPost, fraud prevention duties are in addition to other full-time
\nduties which include visa adjudications, ACS services and all other
\nassigned tasks. Previously, Post’s Regional Security Office and the
\nConsular Section shared a locally employed fraud investigator, but
\nthis position was vacant until August of this year. Post has hired
\na full-time locally-employed fraud investigator who has assisted the
\nsection immensely and completed many successful investigations in
\nhis short time here.<\/p>\n

LANIER
\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Source:\u00a0 http:\/\/wikileaks.org\u00a0 Date: 2009-10-27 F) ADOPTION FRAUD \u00b622. (U) Ugandan law restricts a foreign citizen’s ability to adopt a Ugandan child, and the adoption process is complicated. Ugandan law requires that foreign adoptive parents be physically present in Uganda and foster the child for three years before an adoption is executed in Uganda. However, Ugandan… Read more »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2582"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2582"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2582\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2583,"href":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2582\/revisions\/2583"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2582"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2582"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.againstchildtrafficking.org\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2582"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}