9/11 Working-level Employee

\ OF STATE
\ BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Office of Inspector General

Memorandum of Conversation
Visas for the 9/11 Hijackers US Embassy Madrid. Spain January 24.2003
\ Office Date

| Bert Krieg and Doug Ellice

jRivadh. KSA
Official Inspector

1. Were you the officer who issued nonimmigrant visas to Mohand Al Shehri on October 23,
2000 and Majed Moqed on November 20,2000 at Riyadh?

Yes.

2. Are these copies of their applications?

Yes, I recognize my signature.

3. Does the computer record indicate whether the CLASS lookout system procedure was
followed in this case?

Yes, it does.

4. What were the results of your check?

There were "hits," which I reviewed, but these responses were for persons with different names
and dates of birth.
5. Did you interview these individuals prior to issuing the visa?

No. I would have written some notes on the application forms if I had.

6. If not, why not?

We only interviewed Saudis if there was a previous denial of a visa application or if there was
something wrong with the application. We were issuing visas to all Saudis unless there was an
indication of some difficulty, an unusual problem case.

7. What was the policy at post regarding personal appearance waivers?

 SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED page 2

Policy was that we did not interview Saudis. They rarely applied themselves, but often sent their
application by an expediter, or their drivers. Unless there was a problem, we issued the visa.
We interviewed only a handful of Saudis. They never overstayed in the USA and never worked
there.

8. How were you informed of this policy? In writing? Orally? By whom?

I learned this from the more-experienced visa officers when I first arrived at post, including my
supervisor, |____|

9. Were you personally given any instructions by your supervisors or superiors about asking
applicants to appear in person for an interview?

No or few personal appearances was a post visa policy we all followed.

10. Did a travel agency submit the case?

/9/11 Working-level Employee
Probably not. j

11. If so, what was the policy at post regarding travel agency procedures?

We use expediters which were informal travel agents, and some applicants also brought in their
own applications.

12. How were you informed of this policy? In writing? Orally? By whom?

Visa policies were explained to be by my supervisor,! ]

13. Would a personal interview of this applicant have possibly led to a refusal of this visa, and
why?

No. In| [they would have been denied. Given their ages, we would have denied
their applications.
14. If you interviewed this individual, what details can you recall?

N/A.

15. Did he present any documents in support of his application?

Only student visa applicants were asked to provide supporting documents. When we did base an
issuance on supporting documents we kept Xerox copies in the file with the application.

16. If so, can you recall any details of the documents that were presented?

N/A.
 SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED pages

17. What specific elements obtained from the interview or the application convinced you that
this applicant was entitled to a visa?

I was trained fry| |a junior officer at Riyadh, for a week. We looked at cases together,
and he taught me the job. The NTV section was very busy, and though applications were not
always complete, or signed, we issued visas anyway.

18. Did you have sufficient time to conduct the interview or review the application to your
satisfaction? If not, how much titne would you have preferred?

I had enough time, although we were overworked. I had to work very hard, including during my
lunch break, and I also worked late in the evenings. We tried to maintain a one-day visa
turnaround.

19. Were there sufficient officers, interview windows, work space and support staff at post to
conduct personal interviews of every visa applicant?
/9/11 Working-level Employee
No, but it was not policy to do so,

20. Would any other elements have helped you, make a different decision regarding the
applicant's eligibility for a visa, and why?

Even if we had more time and interviewed these people, we still would have issued visas to
them. Where I worked previously in| [young single males would have been refused visas
under 214 (b). These two guys would not have passed through thej |consulate.

21. Did your superiors ever discuss the post's NTV refusal rates in general with you?

No. (

22. Did your superiors ever counsel you to raise or lower your own refusal rate?

No. I was told I was doing a good job when my performance was evaluated, and I am proud of
the work I did.
23. Did you or anyone in the consular section conduct NTV return validation studies? If not, why
not? \ was told there had been a study once. Saudis were be

would not overstay their visits or work. \. How well did you speak and read Arabic?

| | I had to use FSN translators for my

interviews.
 SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED page 4

25. Did the Department train you in this language?

N/A.

26. Do you consider that the training you received in the Department to carry out your visa
adjudication responsibilities was adequate?

27. If not, what additional training would have enabled you to do a better job?

Language training would have been nice. I had to use a translator whenever I did an interview.
We were focused on anti-fraud work, and using an interpreter was difficult.

28. What other comments would you like to make at this time regarding this visa case?

There were times when I was the only visa officer. We all worked lots of overtime. Consul
General Tom Furey even helped out on the weekends, peeling and sticking visas in passports. I
recall adjudicating about 28,000 or 29,000 visas at Riyadh.

\ had only two of them (the terrorist hiiackersV'but it could have been all 19.

9/11 Working-level Employee