7 FAM 1790
Intercountry adoption
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS)
7 FAM 1791 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Consular officers and locally employed staff (LE staff) at most U.S. embassies and consulates are likely to receive occasional inquiries from U.S. citizen families considering adopting a child resident in their host country. It is important for consular personnel to understand that an adoption case is more than just processing of an immigrant visa for an adoptive or prospective adoptive child. An intercountry adoption case involves visa, immigration, and American Citizens Services (ACS) assistance to a U.S. family. On a policy level it may be necessary for other sections of the mission to become involved in working with the host government on a variety of adoption-related issues.
b. Consular officers preparing for a new assignment are urged to make time for consultations with their program analysts in CA/OCS/CI's Bilateral Adoption Division (CA/OCS/CI/BL) and Adoption Oversight (CA/OCS/CI/AO) Divisions, CA/VO/F, and the Office of Consular Fraud Prevention Programs (CA/FPP) before departing for post. CA/OCS/CI can also assist consular officers in consulting with relevant USCIS offices that oversee adoption issues. CA wants to ensure that every consular officer has the tools and training necessary to effectively manage this highly specialized category of immigrant visa.
c. This FAM subchapter provides a broad overview of the Department’s approach to intercountry adoption policy and practice. We begin with an overview of important intercountry adoption issues. 7 FAM 1795 explains the roles and responsibilities and accreditation and approval of adoption service providers. 7 FAM 1796 and 1797 address the Adoption Convention and orphan case processing, respectively. 7 FAM 1798 provides guidance on communicating about intercountry adoption both within and outside the Department and 7 FAM 1799 lists key internet resources.
7 FAM 1792 AUTHORITIES
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
Legal authorities for consular functions and services related to intercountry adoption include:
(1) Treaties: The 1993 Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Adoption Convention) done at The Hague on May 29, 1993;
(2) Laws:
(a) Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA), Public Law 106-279, Oct. 6, 2000, 42 U.S.C. 14901 – 42 U.S.C. 14952, as amended;
(b) International Adoption Simplification Act of 2010 (IASA), Public Law 111-287, Nov. 30, 2010, 8 U.S.C. 1101, 124 Stat. 3058
(c) Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act of 2012 (UAA), Public Law 112-276, 42 USC 14925, Jan. 14, 2013;
(d) Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 8 U.S.C 1101(b) and 8 U.S.C. 1154(d);
(f) Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (CAA), Pub. L 113-76; and
(g) Host country laws.
(3) Regulations:
(a) 22 CFR Part 96 – Accreditation of Agencies and Approval of Persons under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, January 15, 2006; Public Notice 5296; Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 31 pp. 8064-8161;
(b) 22 CFR Part 97 - Issuance of Adoption Certificates and Custody Declarations in Hague Convention Adoption Cases; Public Notice 5602; Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 212, pp. 64451-64458;
(c) 22 CFR Part 98 -Intercountry Adoption—Convention Record Preservation; February 15, 2006; Public Notice 5297; Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 31 pp. 8161-8164;
(d) 22 CFR Part 99 - Reporting on Non-Convention and Convention Adoptions of Emigrating Children; Sept. 13, 2006; Public Notice 5539; Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 177, pp. 54001 - 54005; Final Rule March 6, 2007; Public Notice 5705; Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 43, pp. 9852 - 9854; and
(e) 22 CFR 42.24 – Visas: Adoption under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000; Consular Officer Procedures in Convention Cases; October 30, 2007; Public Notice 5976; Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 209, pp. 61301-61306. (f) 8 CFR 204.3 - Orphan cases under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the Act (non-Convention cases); Aug. 1, 1994; Federal Register Vol. 59 pp. 38881-43003; Vol. 59 pp. 42878; Aug. 19, 1994, as amended at Federal Register Vol. 63 pp. 12986-12988; Mar. 17, 1998; Federal Register Vol. 68 No 152 pp. 46926-46929; Aug. 7, 2003; Federal Register Vol. 72, No.192 pp 56832-56867; Oct. 4, 2007; Federal Register Vol. 74 pp. 26936-26941; Aug. 29, 2011, Federal Register Vol. 76 pp. 53782-53806; Aug. 3, 2020, Federal Register Vol. 85 pp. 46921-46929.
(g) 8 CFR 204 Subpart C - Intercountry Adoption of a Convention Adoptee (§§ 204.300 - 204.314); Aug. 7, 2003; Federal Register Vol. 72, No.192 pp 56832-56867; Oct. 4, 2007; Federal Register Vol. 74 pp. 26936-26941; Aug. 29, 2011, Federal Register Vol. 76 pp. 53782-53806; Aug. 3, 2020, Federal Register Vol. 85 pp. 46921-46929.
(4) Delegations of Authority:
(a) Delegation of Authority 298 - Authority to Issue Hague Adoption Certificates and Custody Declarations – April 9, 2007; and
(b) Delegation of Authority 261 - Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 – September 16, 2003.
7 FAM 1793 DEFINITIONS
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
The following reflects, to the extent possible, the definitions found in 22 CFR Part 96, DHS regulations, the INA, and the IAA and are included here for ease of reference.
Accredited Agency: A private, nonprofit organization licensed to provide adoption services in at least one state that has been accredited by an accrediting entity, in accordance with the standards in 22 CFR Part 96 Subpart F, to provide adoption services in the United States in intercountry adoption cases.
Accrediting entity (AE): An entity that has been designated by the Secretary (U.S. Department of State) to accredit agencies and approve persons or for-profit agencies for purposes of providing adoption services in the United States in intercountry adoption cases.
Adoption: The judicial or administrative act that establishes a permanent legal parent-child relationship between a minor and an adult who is not already the minor’s legal parent and terminates the legal parent-child relationship between the adoptive child and any former parent(s).
Adoption Service Providers (ASP): The phrase adoption service provider or ASP is commonly used to refer to accredited agencies and approved persons as defined in 22 CFR Part 96 (and as reflected above). In many countries and under the Convention ASPs may be referred to as accredited bodies.
Adoptions Tracking Service (ATS): A software program developed by the Department to track the status of both incoming and outgoing adoption cases (i.e., cases of children both immigrating to, and emigrating from, the United States), support the functions of the Central Authority, and aggregate data for mandatory reporting to Congress. This program is sometimes called the case registry. It receives information on immigration cases related to an intercountry adoption from the Immigrant Visas Overseas system (IVO).
Approved person: An approved person is an individual or a private, for-profit entity (including a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company) that has been approved, in accordance with the standards in subpart F of 22 CFR Part 96, by an accrediting entity to provide adoption services in the United States in intercountry adoption cases.
Case registry: See Adoptions Tracking Service (ATS).
Central authority: The entity designated as such under Article 6(1) of the Convention by any Convention country or, in the case of the United States, the United States Department of State. In countries that are not party to the Convention, Central Authority means the relevant competent authority as defined by this section. CA/OCS/CI is responsible for the day-to-day work of the Central Authority.
Competent authority: A court or governmental authority of a foreign country that has jurisdiction and authority to make decisions in matters of child welfare, including adoption.
Convention: In the context of 7 FAM 1790, Convention refers to the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, done at The Hague on May 29, 1993. The Convention is a multilateral treaty that provides safeguards for protecting children and families involved in intercountry adoption. As of July 2022, more than 100 countries have ratified or otherwise acceded to the Convention.
Convention adoption: The IAA defines a Convention Adoption as the adoption of a child resident in a Convention country by a U.S. citizen or of a child resident in the United States by an individual(s) residing in another Convention country.
Convention country: A country that is a party to the Adoption Convention.
Country information sheets: Reports about intercountry adoption procedures in foreign countries. They include information about restrictions on intercountry adoption in the country, adoption practices and procedures, and cultural issues to take into account when adopting in the specific country. They are located on the adoption.state.gov website under “Country Information” and on respective posts' websites.
Country of origin (COO): The preferred term for referring to the country in which a child is resident and from which a child is emigrating in connection with his or her adoption. COOs have been called sending countries, source countries, or birth countries, but these terms have fallen out of general use.
Disrupted placement/disruption: The interruption of a placement for adoption during the post-placement period (before the adoption has been legally finalized). A disrupted placement thus means a placement for adoption that did not result in a finalized adoption with the initial placement. Disruptions may occur either before or after the appointment for a U.S. immigrant visa and either before or after the travel of the child to the United States.
Dissolved adoption/dissolution: The termination of the adoptive parent’s parental rights after an adoption has been finalized. Dissolutions may occur either before or after the appointment for a U.S. immigrant visa and either before or after the travel of the child to the United States.
Foreign supervised provider: Any agency, person, or other non-governmental entity, regardless of whether it is called a facilitator, agent, attorney, or by any other name, that is providing one or more adoption services in an intercountry adoption case under the supervision and responsibility of an accredited agency or approved person that is acting as the primary provider in the case.
Intercountry adoption: A Convention adoption or the adoption of a child described in INA Section 101(b)(1)(F).
Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA): The U.S. implementing legislation for the Adoption Convention.
Intercountry Adoption Complaint Registry: The Intercountry Adoption Complaint Registry (Complaint Registry) is the internet-based application created by the Department in accordance with 22 CFR Part 96 to receive, distribute, and monitor complaints from the public against accredited agencies and approved persons that raise an issue of compliance with the Adoption Convention, the IAA, UAA, or the regulations implementing the IAA and UAA.
Office of Children’s Issues: The office in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services (CA/OCS/CI) responsible for intercountry adoption policy, as well as implementation of the Adoption Convention in the United States. It is also known as “CI.” CA/OCS/CI is responsible for the day-to-day work of the U.S. Central Authority under the Adoption Convention and is comprised of the Bilateral Adoption Division (CA/OCS/CI/BL) and the Adoption Oversight Division (CA/OCS/CI/AO).
Orphan: A child who meets the definition of orphan as provided under INA section 101(b)(1)(F).
Non-convention adoption: Intercountry adoptions occurring between the United States and a country with which the United States does not have a treaty relationship under the Adoption Convention. Sometimes also known as orphan adoptions.
Post-adoption reporting (PAR): A requirement by a COO to provide reports on a child during the period following the finalization of the adoption.
Post-placement reporting (PPR): A requirement by a COO to provide reports on a child during the post-placement period. Post-placement means after a grant of legal custody or guardianship of a child to the PAP(s), or to a custodian for the purpose of escorting the child to the identified PAP(s), and before an adoption.
Prospective adoptive parent (PAP): A person seeking to adopt a child.
Receiving country: The preferred term for referring to the country to which a child adopted abroad is moved by the child’s adoptive family.
United States Central Authority (USCA): The function under the Adoption Convention assigned to the Department of State and performed in large part by CA/OCS/CI. See Central Authority.
Universal Accreditation Act of 2012 (UAA). The U.S. legislation ensuring that ASPs providing services in cases subject to INA 101(b)(1)(F) (orphan cases) are held to the same federal accreditation and approval standards as ASPs providing services in Convention adoptions.
7 FAM 1794 Overview of Intercountry Adoption Issues
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Sensitivity of Intercountry Adoption: Adoption involves children in need – some in urgent need – of a loving, permanent home and family. U.S. citizen PAPs who embark on this process are reaching out to fulfill this need and, in many cases, have undergone an arduous and often frustrating journey navigating the requirements of two different countries. Recognizing the sensitivity of intercountry adoption, the Department and consular personnel abroad must often vigorously engage at both the policy and case levels to protect the interests of all parties involved: children in need of permanency, birth parents, PAPs, and adoptive parents. Also, consistent with the Convention, the United States should act in the best interests of children, even when such children are not yet U.S. citizens or where U.S. citizen children may be immigrating to another country for the purpose of adoption. As a result, the Department, both at post and in Washington, is oftentimes involved in child welfare and adoption matters in COOs and receiving countries at both the policy and case processing levels.
b. Similarly, the intensive, consistent, and bipartisan attention the issue of intercountry adoption receives from Congress highlights the significance of preserving both the viability and integrity of the intercountry adoption process. Members of Congress frequently request the Department’s assistance on behalf of their constituents. Many members closely follow developments in intercountry adoption, including the Department’s diplomatic efforts to implement effective adoption policies and to assist in individual cases.
c. Shared Responsibilities for Intercountry Adoption:
(1) The Office of Children’s Issues (CA/OCS/CI) was created in 1994 to address the growing issue of international parental child abduction (see 7 FAM 1710), and the policy aspects of intercountry adoption. CA/OCS/CI is responsible for the Department’s day-to-day work as the designated U.S. Central Authority for the Adoption Convention, which is discussed in detail later in this chapter;
(2) CA/OCS/CI includes two divisions working on intercountry adoption issues. The Bilateral Adoption Division (CA/OCS/CI/BL) focuses on bilateral and multilateral engagements supporting intercountry adoption to and from the United States, including improving practice under and support for the Adoption Convention. The Adoption Oversight Division (CA/OCS/CI/AO) oversees the accreditation system for U.S. adoption service providers as well as the Department’s regulatory framework under the IAA. The divisions work closely together to develop and implement the Department’s policies and priorities related to the Adoption Convention, the IAA, the UAA, and implementing regulations;
(3) Because adoption abroad involves both services to U.S. citizens and immigrant visa services, CA/OCS/CI and the Visa Office (CA/VO) share and have somewhat overlapping responsibilities in this area;
(4) CA/VO is responsible for all aspects of the immigrant visa process and provides instructions and guidance to posts about how adoptive parents or PAPs may obtain U.S. immigrant visas for their foreign-born adopted children or those they are in the process of adopting. CA/VO/F is the first point of contact for post on these issues;
(5) As needed, CA/FPP, working with CA/VO/F and CA/OCS/CI, is responsible for providing assistance and guidance to posts’ Fraud Prevention Unit on potential fraud or illicit practices in intercountry adoption as addressed below;
(6) CA/OCS/ACS provides guidance and support to consular officers in the field who may assist in providing special consular services to U.S. citizen PAPs and non-citizen prospective adoptive children, including but not limited to stalled adoptions as described below (see 1794.5);
(7) The Office of Legal Adviser, Consular Affairs (L/CA) provides legal guidance on intercountry adoption related matters to CA/OCS/CI, CA/VO/F, CA/OCS/ACS and posts abroad. L/CA acts as CA’s main point of contact for the Office of Legal Adviser, which may have equities; and
(8) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also plays a critical role in intercountry adoption cases, including case processing under Convention Article 14. USCIS governs the immigrant petition approval process, including the review of the suitability and eligibility of PAPs to adopt. DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) admits immigrating children with immigrant visas at ports of entry.
d. In coordinating adoption policy, CA/OCS/CI works with agencies throughout U.S. federal, state, and local governments, as well as with Congressional offices, foreign governments, and nongovernmental organizations. All of these have important roles to play in formulating adoption policy, sharing information, and addressing country or case specific issues that may arise. It is critical that posts maintain excellent contacts with host government officials responsible for intercountry adoption matters and that consular personnel in particular share information on adoption-related developments in the host country with CA/OCS/CI.
7 FAM 1794.1 Understanding your Host Country
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Posts are most likely to encounter intercountry adoption cases through the immigrant visa process. (See 9 FAM 502.3 for guidance on the processing of adoption immigrant visa cases.) Handling intercountry adoption cases efficiently, responsibly, and in accordance with U.S. and foreign laws is one of the Department's highest priorities. The Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) works with posts to ensure consular officers have the training and information they need to ensure an efficient and transparent process of adjudicating intercountry adoptions. Posts should communicate to CA/OCS/CI and CA/VO/F any local developments or trends, including changes in law, that may impact intercountry adoption processing in the host country so that CA/OCS/CI and CA/VO/F may work with consular staff to respond appropriately. At some posts, USCIS has officers who work with consular personnel in the petition approval process. At other posts, officers work closely with regional or domestic USCIS offices to process adoption cases and make immigration status determinations. Close coordination with these USCIS offices is essential.
b. CA’s Who’s Who in the Office of Children’s Issues provides information on the portfolios and points of contact for staff in CA/OCS/CI/AO and CA/OCS/CI/BL.
c. Country-specific information on the Department's adoption website is a good place to start for host-country adoption information. Review the page on your host country and alert your program analyst in CA/OCS/CI/BL when updates are needed. Learn which entity in the host government has authority over adoption processing. There may be multiple entities with a role in the process. Find out if there are any known tensions or inconsistencies among the relevant host government entities (see 1794.2 below). Research the foreign legal process and foreign law to determine how a child becomes eligible for adoption, what the requirements for PAPs are, how PAPs are matched with an eligible child, what fees are charged for services rendered and by whom, and what the procedures are to complete an adoption. CA/OCS/CI encourages consular officers to meet with your adoption counterparts at regular intervals to determine whether there have been any changes in adoptions laws and regulations and to promote consideration of accession to the Adoption Convention, as appropriate. CA/OCS/CI/BL has talking points for meetings on any of the above points.
d. To combat document fraud in the adoption process, obtain exemplars of local adoption documents, signatures, and lists of names of government officials authorized to sign adoption-related documents. Ask government officials what screening processes they have in place to combat fraudulent documents and malfeasance in the adoption system in general. Understand what fraud concerns exist in the host country starting with the annual country fraud summary to identify potential weaknesses in the child welfare and adoption systems. If local officials are susceptible to bribery or corruption, scrutinize incoming cases even more closely. Posts must update the country fraud summary with relevant information on adoptions each year.
e. Ensure that your CA/FPP post liaison is informed of any potential fraud issues and make sure the issues are thoroughly described in the mission annual country fraud summary. If there is a USCIS field office in your country, develop a strong, collaborative working relationship with its staff and work together in coordinating interaction with government officials and other entities regarding orphan adoption issues. Use the fraud summary and spot reporting as needed to share information on adoption fraud and trends and prevailing country conditions. Alert CA by cable of more immediate, emergent issues. For more on combating adoption fraud see 1794.4 below.
f. If local law permits, and in collaboration with CA/OCS/CI/AO, establish contact with ASPs, their representatives, and foreign supervised providers (often called “facilitators”) working in-country. Learn what rules and regulations govern their activities, including the process for ASPs to receive authorization to work in the country as required under Article 12 of the Convention and/or local law. Meet with local ASPs as a group to inform them of U.S. laws, regulations, and procedures. Form an intercountry adoption working group consisting of adjudication and fraud prevention equivalents from like-minded missions.
e. Visit local orphanages to gather information about adoption case characteristics. Maintain general information (not PII) about the average age of the children who are in the orphanage and, separately, maintain information about children who are eligible for intercountry adoption to help create a baseline of norms for adoptions at post. Once the baseline is established, cases which present themselves outside of the norms (for example, unusually large numbers of children found abandoned in a region where birth parents usually relinquish their parental rights) may trigger additional questions to assess fraud concerns.
7 FAM 1794.2 Host Country Views of Intercountry Adoption
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Intercountry adoption can be an extremely sensitive issue for all parties. This includes the government and general public in the COOs. Some countries embrace intercountry adoption as a key component of their child welfare system. Others, however, take it as a matter of pride that they are able to care for their own children and react negatively to suggestions that they should join the Adoption Convention or that intercountry adoption could be a solution for children in need of a family in their country. The Department’s role is not to advocate for more children to be eligible for intercountry adoption, rather to support a clear, ethical, transparent adoption process for situations in which the appropriate adoption authority has determined intercountry adoption is in the best interests of a particular child in need of permanency. Posts need to remain attuned to host country sentiment, relate significant changes to the Department, and in countries with anti-adoption views, seek opportunities to demonstrate the positive benefits of intercountry adoption for children in need of permanency who would not otherwise have that option locally.
b. In some countries, intercountry adoption becomes a political issue, dividing host country political blocs into “pro” and “anti” camps. In some countries, certain members of parliament are known anti-adoption advocates who regularly introduce legislation that would restrict or stop intercountry adoptions. Sometimes such measures are specifically aimed at U.S. adoptions. Often, such draft legislation or other anti-adoption rhetoric in political speeches or in the local media arises in response to specific high profile adoption cases. Some countries have enacted moratoria in response to patterns or instances of U.S. families’ non-compliance with post-placement and post-adoption reporting requirements.
c. In light of COO sensitivities, posts may want to consider whether to develop pro-intercountry adoption outreach campaigns. While posts must refrain from commenting in detail on specific cases in keeping with the restrictions of the Privacy Act and the confidentiality provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), consular sections are encouraged to work closely with CA/OCS/CI/BL and their public affairs section colleagues to devise strategies for countering anti-adoption propaganda. As just one example, U.S. Government funded International Visitor Leadership Programs (IVLPs) can often be used to great effect. 10 FAM 216 provides guidance about international visitor programs. CA/OCS/CI analysts routinely speak to IVLP delegations of adoption and child welfare officials, and the regional bureaus’ public diplomacy offices have a great deal of experience in arranging IVLP tours that include meetings with children adopted from the IVLP participants’ home countries. The specific circumstances will of course affect post’s approach, and an IVLP may not be appropriate or practical in every case but initiating and maintaining a dialogue with host government officials and the local media can ultimately prove very beneficial for the children’s best interests. All posts should consult with CA/OCS/CI/BL when faced with significant anti-adoption sentiments in the host country.
7 FAM 1794.3 Outreach and Advocacy
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Country Information Sheets and Adoption Notices: CA/OCS/CI is responsible for preparing and, as necessary, updating adoption country information sheets (CIS) that provide PAPs with the best and most recent information available on local adoption conditions, requirements, and practice. ASPs, PAPs, USCIS, foreign governments, and others rely on this information being accurate. The CIS have a specific format and include substantial standard language in addition to the country specific information. It is therefore very important that consular sections coordinate closely with CA/OCS/CI/BL on the drafting and updating of these webpages. Consular sections must inform CA/OCS/CI/BL immediately upon becoming aware of developments or changes in the host country’s intercountry adoption laws or procedures that the Department should publicize to the U.S. adoption community. Both CIS and adoption notices are posted on the Consular Affairs Bureau’s Adoption website and consular sections should link from their own sites to the adoption.state.gov website rather than posting the information directly on the embassy/consulate site.
b. Promoting the Adoption Convention: The U.S. Government’s goal is to ensure that all intercountry adoptions are conducted in a manner that serves the best interests of the child. The U.S. Government has determined that the Adoption Convention provides the best mechanism for accomplishing this goal. CA/OCS/CI/BL takes the lead in developing bilateral and multilateral strategies to encourage COOs not yet party to the Convention to begin the process of revising national practices to bring them in line with the Convention's obligations and to eventually join the Convention. During visits to Washington, DC by government, non-government, and private sector officials from non-Convention COOs, CA/OCS/CI/BL and CA/OCS/CI/AO analysts discuss potential vulnerabilities and Convention-consistent safeguards and, where appropriate, coordinate technical assistance.
c. Posts must coordinate their diplomatic efforts with CA/OCS/CI/BL to improve intercountry adoption practices and encourage effective implementation of the Adoption Convention in the host country, to prioritize use of Department resources and to maximize the effectiveness of efforts by all parties. Host country officials with questions about the Convention, its implementation in the United States, or how Convention adoptions would be conducted between the host country and the United States, may visit the CA/OCS/CI pages on adoption.state.gov for general information or submit specific questions to CA/OCS/CI/BL. CA/OCS/CI will continue to maintain and update talking points for posts’ use concerning the Convention implementation process. The public talking points section of CA Web includes generic talking points for posts' use to encourage implementation of the Adoption Convention in host countries and for use with other foreign missions working in the same host country. If specific questions arise that are not covered by the public talking points, posts should coordinate with CA/OCS/CI/BL to develop appropriate points.
d. PAPs should be encouraged to obtain the services of accredited or approved ASPs. ASPs must maintain compliance with federal regulations pertaining to accreditation and approval; posts are encouraged to direct PAP inquiries to informational materials highlighting the importance of accreditation and the accreditation standards available on the adoption.state.gov website. Posts may also consult CA/OCS/CI/AO for assistance in responding to specific inquiries about ASPs, accreditation and approval, and the regulations that govern intercountry adoption. Host country governments may also benefit from a better understanding of U.S. accreditation procedures. CA/OCS/CI/AO can provide briefings about the U.S. regulatory requirements to central and competent authorities.
7 FAM 1794.4 Adoption Fraud and other Illicit Practices
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. In General:
(1) As in all immigrant visa cases, consular officers adjudicating adoption cases should exercise due diligence, carefully scrutinizing the statements made and the documents presented to them (See 9 FAM 502.3);
(2) Officers should be versed in the host country’s adoption, custody, and guardianship laws and procedures, and should rely on competent local authorities to make responsible decisions about the facts surrounding child custody decisions and final adoptions; and
(3) At the same time, officers should keep in mind that terms used by such local authorities (such as "abandonment") may not always be equivalent to definitions for such terms in U.S. immigration law. In all cases, the requirements of U.S. immigration law must be met. Additionally, consular officers in Convention countries must be able to certify that individual adoptions comply with the Convention, the IAA, and applicable regulations, which may require verifying decisions or policy interpretations on the part of the foreign Central Authority or its designated competent authorities.
b. Evaluating Convention Country Systems: CA/OCS/CI, in consultation with L/CA, is responsible for evaluating Convention country systems to determine whether, in accordance with U.S. law, posts are able to process Convention adoptions from the COO on a case-by-case basis. It is essential that consular officers provide CA/OCS/CI with information on developing or concerning trends as soon as the trends are identified, as processing changes or systemic adoption fraud concerns may impact whether the Department will be able to issue Hague Certificates in Convention adoptions from a given country.
c. Reliability of Civil Documents: Many internationally adopted children come from countries where record keeping may be unreliable. Birth, marriage, and death certificates as well as other civil documents may be easily forged or altered, or real documents may be fraudulently obtained. Civil registrars and other officials may sometimes accept payment to alter such records to facilitate an adoption. Posts should develop good working relationships with the key local officials responsible for maintaining civil records as well as those with the authority to accept birth parent relinquishment statements. The reciprocity schedules for each country provide information on the availability and reliability of civil documents in that country. CA/OCS/CI also encourages posts to report to CA/OCS/CI, CA/VO, and CA/FPP any concerns or changes regarding the reliability of civil documents.
|
See also Visa Reciprocity and CA/VO Country Documents Finder and the CA/FPP page on the Bureau of Consular Affairs intranet site. |
d. Birth Parent Identity Concerns: Some posts have encountered cases in which impostors presented themselves to local officials as the children’s birth parents to relinquish “their” parental rights. Posts should also be alert for patterns of supposed child abandonment by unknown birth parents in which the circumstances are nearly identical. In situations involving children from countries that have recently gone through civil wars or other strife, children presented for adoption may have been separated from their birth parents, sent to live with relatives, or even placed in orphanages for temporary care until the birth parents could return for them. In these scenarios, the child may not be eligible for adoption. The Department is aware of cases in which unscrupulous individuals have attempted to take advantage of such circumstances by presenting children whose parents’ whereabouts are simply unknown as orphans without the appropriate confirmation by a competent authority that reasonable efforts were made to locate the parents in accordance with local law. Posts in countries coming out of wars or other unrest should be particularly alert to such scenarios. (See 9 FAM 502.3-3(B)(6); 9 FAM 502.3-4(C)(8))
e. Child Substitution: Unscrupulous adoption facilitators or orphanage personnel may offer to U.S. PAPs a child who is not in fact the child whose documentation is being presented in support of the case. Consular staff should remain alert for cases in which a child’s stated date of birth does not seem to correspond to the age of the child physically present in front of them. In other scenarios, photographs of the same child may show up in multiple cases although the actual children being taken out of the COO are different. This latter type of fraud is especially difficult to detect since many babies may look similar and the consular facial recognition program may not detect the difference. The Department is aware of several cases, however, in which astute locally employed staff personnel recognized repeat photographs and were thereby able to prevent fraud. The Kentucky Consular Center (CA/VO/KCC) has staff members who are experts in facial recognition and photographic inspection, and posts should not hesitate to confer with KCC and CA/FPP on questionable cases (See 9 FAM 303.6-2).
f. Combating Adoption Fraud/Demographic Statistics & Trends: Monitoring overall adoption figures can be helpful in catching problems early on before they get out of control. Post need not be doing thousands or even hundreds of adoption visa cases per year to be concerned about adoption fraud. For instance, if post’s immigrant visa unit only adjudicated five adoption cases in the prior fiscal year but has already seen five cases in the first four months of this year, that trend line may be worth exploring sooner rather than later. Posts should inform CA/OCS/CI of any noted trends, particularly those involving foreign supervised providers working under written supervisory agreements with U.S. accredited adoption service providers.
g. While changes in intercountry adoption trends do occur for reasons other than fraud, the following examples require posts’ scrutiny. Such trends are indicators only, and consular personnel should not view them as sufficient reason to deny cases; rather, they may mean cases require further investigation:
(1) A sudden upsurge of adoptions from a particular region of the host country could indicate a corrupt local official or orphanage director;
(2) A change in the age of the children who are being adopted. For example, if post suddenly sees much younger children being adopted, this could point to payments to pregnant women or new mothers to relinquish their children soon after birth; and
(3) On the other hand, an increase in the number of adoptions may not be nefarious but indicate the beginning of a new intercountry adoption program or a new willingness from the COO to permit intercountry adoptions to the United States;
h. Whatever the cause, post should report changes to CA/OCS/CI and CA/VO/F in a timely fashion. Also, post may need to use diplomatic inquiries and meetings to discuss any systemic issues with the appropriate host country competent adoption, child welfare, or other appropriate authorities or with representatives of other receiving countries to gain a full understanding of developing trends and to convey U.S. Government support or concern.
i. Reporting Fraud Cases, Trends, and Concerns: All consular sections are required, as part of their annual fraud summary, to include information about adoption fraud. Posts should not feel, however, they must limit their reporting on adoption fraud to these reports or that they should not take action locally in response to concerns. Posts are encouraged to meet with appropriate COO officials and raise these issues as they emerge so that both governments may work together in the children’s best interests. In addition, consular sections should report to CA/OCS/CI, CA/FPP, and CA/VO any apparent trends or problems as they arise, rather than waiting until the next regular fraud summary. The CA recipients of post’s fraud information will coordinate among themselves as well as with post and USCIS to determine whether other specific action is warranted beyond post’s initial discussions with the host government.
j. CA/OCS/CI and CA/FPP will coordinate with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) on fraud matters in accordance with established procedures.
7 FAM 1794.5 Providing Assistance in Stalled Adoptions
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. There are instances where a COO suspends adoptions or may take action that prevents intercountry adoption cases from moving forward indefinitely. A COO may halt all adoption processing or may refuse to take action on particular cases, which prevents them from being processed. Some of the reasons that may lead to such action include sensitivities in intercountry adoption and internal host country views; external pressure for reform as a result of systemic fraud concerns in a COO; and political upheaval or natural disasters.
b. How Stalled Adoptions Impact Posts: In a stalled adoption case, U.S. citizen PAPs or adoptive parents often seek assistance for a non-U.S. citizen child who they have adopted or are attempting to adopt. Specific types of requests for assistance may include help with issuing a child’s visa or advocating for the adoption to advance; confirming the wellbeing of the child; providing medical supplies, food, and other necessities; and communicating with caregivers or foreign authorities. Consular officers may provide assistance and confirm the wellbeing of non-U.S. citizen children who are being adopted by or have been adopted by U.S. citizens in a stalled adoption case on a case-by-case basis with CA/OCS/CI/BL concurrence. Please note that consular assistance in a stalled adoption does not equate with general consular services under 7 FAM 010 and that a visa may not be issued to a child under these circumstances unless the child is fully qualified under the law. Also note that consular officers do not provide legal advice or advocate for a specific outcome in an individual case.
c. When a request for assistance involving a stalled adoption is made to a U.S. embassy or consulate, consular officers should follow these steps:
(1) Evaluate the request to determine if it is credible. Verify that there is a legitimate relationship and interest established between the U.S. citizen parent making the request and the child who is the subject of the request. Obtain as much information as possible about the adoption, including where the U.S. citizen parents are in the adoption process, why they are making the request for assistance, and the specific circumstances in the host country that are preventing the adoption from moving forward;
(2) Determine whether private assistance is impractical or unavailable before determining what assistance may be appropriate. If the U.S. citizen PAPs/parents, the adoption agency, or other private resources are able to provide assistance, consular officers should defer direct assistance such as welfare visits or medical/food deliveries to those entities. Consular officers may work with all parties, including CA/OCS/ACS and CA/OCS/CI, to facilitate communication and to coordinate actions with host government officials as appropriate;
(3) If the consular officer determines the request is credible, the consular officer must communicate the request in writing to CA/OCS/CI/BL;
(4) If CA/OCS/CI/BL authorizes assistance, consular officers should obtain consent to provide consular services from the host government, as necessary;
(5) Consular officers should work closely with the host government to obtain any additional information on the specific cases and circumstances that are preventing the cases from moving forward and to coordinate on any follow-up actions as appropriate. Follow up action will vary depending on the circumstances but may include coordinating with CA/OCS/CI/BL to seek information or other appropriate assistance for specific adoption cases, coordinating with the host government on how the U.S. embassy or consulate may assist, and determining the immediate needs of the children and U.S. families affected by the situation; and
(6) In an adoption crisis, such as a natural disaster or life-threatening emergency, provision of assistance may be authorized by the CA/OCS/CI Office Director and his or her designees outside of these outlined procedures.
d. CA/OCS/CI/BL Responsibilities in Stalled Adoption Cases:
(1) Upon receipt and preliminary evaluation of the request from post, the BL program analyst will seek appropriate approval. If CA/OCS/CI/BL receives a request directly from the U.S. citizen PAPs/parents or their agents, the program analyst should immediately notify post and ask post to follow up in accordance with the above guidance. Upon approval, the program analyst will communicate authorization to post and follow the case developments accordingly. CA/OCS/CI/BL will coordinate any further updates and communication as necessary and appropriate with PAPs/parents and their agents, Congressional offices, and other parties involved; and
(2) CA/OCS/CI is required to include in the Department’s annual report to Congress certain information regarding actions taken by host governments that prevent or prohibit adoptions involving immigration to the United States. Posts should report any such actions to CA/OCS/CI/BL immediately.
7 FAM 1794.6 Post-Adoption and Post-Placement Reporting
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Defining Post-adoption and Post-placement Reporting: Post-adoption reporting (PAR) refers to a requirement imposed by a child’s COO that adoptive parents or ASPs submit to COO authorities occasional reports on the child’s progress and welfare after an adoption has been concluded. Post-placement reporting (PPR) refers to similar requirements after a grant of legal custody or guardianship of the child to the PAP(s) (or, in some cases, to the ASP) and before the final adoption. (Some countries grant interim custody or guardianship to the ASP rather than directly to the PAP(s); in such cases, the ASP is generally liable for the PPRs.)
b. Purpose: Countries with PAR and PPR requirements say that the purpose of the reports is to receive assurance that they have not permitted their children to be placed or adopted into dangerous environments. In addition, many of these countries permit the children to maintain the citizenship of their COO until they reach adulthood, and thus these governments believe that they have a continued interest in monitoring the children’s welfare. In most cases, however, COO governments appear simply to want ongoing confirmation that they made adoption decisions that proved to be in the children’s best interests.
c. Criteria and Procedures: The number and frequency of reports vary from country to country. Some countries want a limited number of reports, for instance at 12, 24, and 36 months after the child has immigrated to the United States. At the other extreme, a small number of countries want reports until the child reaches age 18, even if s/he was adopted as an infant. Many countries fall somewhere in between, asking for more frequent reports in the period immediately following the placement or adoption, followed by more intermittent reports as time goes on.
d. How PAR and PPR requirements are met is equally varied. In some countries it is the adoptive parents’ U.S. ASP that is responsible for ensuring that the reports get filed on time, and the ASP’s future authorization to operate in the country is linked to their client families’ compliance. Other countries do not officially recognize the role of ASPs in the adoption process, and thus the agreement to comply with PAR and PPR requirements is made directly between the adopting families and the COO government.
e. In addition, the mechanisms for how reports are submitted also differ from country to country. In some instances, the reports are sent to local child welfare officials in the region of the COO where the child was born or the adoption was granted. Still other countries require that adoptive parents submit the reports to the countries’ consular representatives in the United States. It is vital that posts understand local PAR and PPR requirements and report them to CA/OCS/CI/BL, so that it can assist PAPs in understanding the significant ongoing reporting obligations that may be involved in adopting a child from a particular country. The Department relies on posts’ conversations with host government officials to learn as much as possible about any PAR and PPR requirements that may exist. CA/OCS/CI/BL will incorporate the requirements into the country information sheets posted on adoption.state.gov.
f. Enforcement of PAR and PPR Requirements: Some countries have sought U.S. Government assistance in locating adopted children now in the United States because those children’s parents reportedly failed to comply fully with PAR or PPR obligations. In response to such requests, the Department notes that children who came to the United States pursuant to an intercountry adoption generally acquired U.S. citizenship (at the time of entry or shortly thereafter) or are lawfully permanent residents, and thus are covered by the Privacy Act. 7 FAM 060 provides guidance regarding the Privacy Act. That said, the Department encourages U.S. citizen adoptive parents to take these obligations seriously, as they may risk the ability of future U.S. citizen families and foreign children to be matched together. Some countries have imposed restrictions on new adoption dossiers by U.S. citizen PAPs in response to past parents’ reported insufficient compliance with PAR or PPR requirements. The Department and ASPs have no ability to compel adoptive parents to comply with the COO’s PAR requirements but may communicate with adoptive parents to convey the importance of honoring commitments made at the time of the adoption.
h. Consular sections in countries with PAR and/or PPR requirements should work with the host government to create informational materials in English explaining the nature of the requirements, and then routinely provide these to PAPs and adoptive parents at the time of the IV interview. Consular officers should tell parents at the time of the interview about the requirements, especially if they are unclear or only provided in the local language.
7 FAM 1794.7 Disrupted Placements and Dissolved Adoptions
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Background:
(1) Every year, CA/OCS/CI/AO and posts learn of cases in which U.S. citizen PAPs or adoptive parents change their minds about their intercountry adoption and may seek to disrupt a placement for adoption or dissolve a finalized adoption (see 7 FAM 1793 definitions). Handling these cases requires attention to the wellbeing of the child involved, managing the impact of such cases on the bilateral relationship, and determining whether parties to the adoption have acted appropriately. For all cases, regardless of whether the adoption is final or a visa has been issued, Post should immediately notify the Adoption Oversight Division (CA/OCS/CI/AO) for awareness and guidance, as appropriate, on coordination with other Department offices, U.S. state or foreign authorities, ASPs, and USCIS; and
(2) Depending on the specific circumstances, these cases may result in either a disrupted placement or dissolved adoption, and the Department’s, posts’, ASP’s, and adoptive parents’ roles in addressing them may vary greatly:
(a) In cases of a disrupted placement, the ASP is responsible under 22 CFR 96.50 for providing certain support services and for making another placement of the child. ASP efforts to identify a new placement may be done in coordination with appropriate state or foreign authorities, depending on the child's location; and
(b) In cases of a dissolved adoption, the adoptive parents (in accordance with the laws and requirements of the state of residence) or relevant child welfare authorities may place the child with a new adoptive family or into temporary care arrangements to wait for a new placement.
b. Reasons: PAPs or adoptive parents may have a variety of reasons for deciding not to complete an adoption or visa case, or not to parent an adopted child. The list below is illustrative only and should not be interpreted as being exhaustive:
(1) Medical Issues: Sometimes PAPs are not prepared for the extent of a child’s medical conditions. This may arise due to incomplete medical information received during the adoption process, previously undiagnosed health problems, or inadequate parent training and preparation. The PAPs may conclude that they cannot meet the child’s needs, whether due to emotional or financial considerations;
(2) Psychological and Behavioral Issues: The standards of orphanages or foster care can vary tremendously, as can the level of interaction that children in those orphanages have with adults and other children. Prior trauma, neglect, or abuse may affect a child’s ability to adjust, attach, and assimilate into their new family. Some parents who are not sufficiently prepared for such behaviors, who do not have access to post-placement/adoption counseling resources, or who have tried unsuccessfully to help their children overcome these issues, may ultimately conclude they are unable to continue parenting;
(3) Other family considerations: In a small number of cases, the Department has become aware of U.S. PAPs who initiated or completed adoption proceedings, but then later experienced life-changing issues, such as divorce, death of a spouse or another child, or loss of employment. If one or both PAPs or parents no longer wishes or is unable to complete the adoption or to maintain the parental relationship following an adoption, the adoption may be disrupted or face dissolution; and
(4) The Children’s Wishes: In most countries, children who have reached a certain age or level of maturity are required to expressly consent to the adoption and receive the same type of counseling that would allow them to make an informed decision about the adoption as the birth parents receive. However, even after having consented, some children, despite the best efforts of their U.S. citizen families, simply have no desire to remain in the United States. This is more common among older children, who may have left friends or biological siblings behind in the COO, or have ongoing ties to their extended families, particularly grandparents. Sometimes, there is nothing to prevent a child from changing his or her mind.
c. Citizenship Considerations: Under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, most children adopted from abroad acquire citizenship upon lawful admission into the United States pursuant to permanent residence or upon the finalization of their adoption in the United States (whichever is later), provided the other criteria of the law are met. 8 FAM 301.10 provides guidance on adjudication of citizenship claims under the Act. Consular officers should note that citizenship, once acquired, is not lost if the child’s U.S. citizen adoptive parents subsequently decide to dissolve the adoption. Whether the child is placed with a new adoptive family, or a U.S. social services agency, and even if the child returns to the COO, the child will retain their U.S. citizenship. This is particularly important to note in the latter cases, as post’s American Citizen Services (ACS) unit may be asked to conduct welfare and whereabouts visits or undertake other ACS actions and services with regard to the U.S. citizen minor now present in the COO. 7 FAM 110 and 140 provide guidance on handling welfare and whereabouts cases and visits. Conversely, children who immigrate to the United States based on a guardianship order but are subject to a disruption before their adoption is finalized in the United States do not acquire citizenship through their original petitioning adoptive parents. Such children may acquire citizenship through their previous or new adoptive parents if they meet all the requirements of the INA through their new adoptive parents, including requirements that apply to adopted children under INA 101(b)(1). For example, a child who met the definition of child as an orphan (under INA 101(b)(1)(F)) with their original petitioning prospective adoptive parents may be able to establish eligibility if they meet the requirements for a family-based petition (Section 101(b)(1)(E) of the INA) with their new adoptive parents.
d. Department and Post Actions: The Department’s role in assisting these families and children varies depending on whether the child is a U.S. citizen and whether the child is located in the United States or abroad (either because the child has not yet traveled to the United States or has been returned to the COO). Posts that become aware of a possible disruption or dissolution should contact CA/OCS/CI/AO for assistance. This is especially important in cases in which a PAP or adoptive parent may be planning to return a child in the United States to the COO. Possible actions for CA/OCS/CI/AO or posts to take may include:
(1) Assisting U.S. families resident in the United States who contact the Department prior to disrupting a placement or dissolving their adoptions in understanding how to identify resources in the United States and what authorities they may wish to consult;
(2) Informing state or local officials of possible disrupted placements or dissolved adoptions, so that such officials may review the situations and take appropriate actions to protect the children. This is especially critical when custody of a child has been transferred to another individual or group without the involvement of relevant authorities (known as “unregulated custody transfer” or “re-homing”), which places children at greater risk of harm;
(3) Contacting government officials in the child’s COO to determine the country’s receptiveness to receiving a returned child after a disrupted placement or dissolved adoption. Such contact should include finding out what arrangements might be made for the child’s care once returned, what the COO considers to be the child’s citizenship status, and what legal ramifications the return could have on the adoptive parents;
(4) Providing to the U.S. parents information obtained from host government officials about how they might dissolve a completed adoption and their continuing legal obligations, if any;
(5) Conducting welfare and whereabouts visits on returned U.S. citizen children and conveying to local child welfare officials any concerns about such children’s ongoing well-being. 7 FAM 110 and 140 provide general guidance about handling welfare and whereabouts cases visits; and
(6) Arranging for the repatriation to the United States of U.S. citizen children when appropriate based on the facts in the case. 7 FAM 370 provides guidance about the repatriation loan program.
e. Information Sharing and Reporting Requirements: CA/OCS/CI/AO will report to concerned posts any information it receives regarding children whose U.S. citizen adoptive parents contact the Department and state an intention to return their adoptive children to their COO. CA/OCS/CI/AO will engage directly with parents, ASPs, and relevant state child welfare authorities, as appropriate, but may request posts’ assistance in answering questions regarding the child’s return to provide that information to the parents and others charged with protecting the child’s safety and welfare. Posts should also report to CA/OCS/CI/AO any cases it learns about in which a U.S. citizen family has returned (or intends to return) an adopted child to the COO or disrupts a placement or dissolves an adoption while the child is still in the COO.
f. Posts should also note that while the adoption aspects of these cases fall to CA/OCS/CI, a returned U.S. citizen child for whom a welfare and whereabouts check is requested should be viewed primarily as an ACS case. Additionally, CA/OCS/ACS takes the lead on all repatriation cases of U.S. citizen children whose adoption has been dissolved, with legal and policy guidance from L/CA as appropriate. Requests for welfare and whereabouts visits on such children will be routed via the appropriate country officer in CA/OCS/ACS, but posts’ reports to CA/OCS/ACS should also be brought to the attention of CA/OCS/CI/AO.
7 FAM 1794.8 Adoptions in the United States of Children Who Did Not Enter the Country on Immigrant Visas
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. General: Adoption in the United States, as a family court matter, has traditionally been the purview of state and local courts rather than the federal government. State/local judges occasionally encounter adoption petitions filed on behalf of children who entered the United States other than via the immigrant visa process but whose adoptions may fall under the jurisdiction of and may meet state law requirements, regardless of the children’s immigration status. However, such adoptions may not be consistent with the Convention, which would result in the child’s ineligibility for immigration benefits and ability to adjust status. Whether the adoption is subject to the Convention depends on the habitual residence as it applies to U.S. and foreign citizen parents and children from Convention countries. 7 FAM 890 provides guidance regarding notarial services related to children who are in the United States in a temporary status. While state laws may consider children who are not U.S. citizens or LPRs to be eligible for adoption in that state, an adoption may circumvent the Hague Convention. In most cases, these adoptions create concern by the COO and a need for CA/OCS/CI/BL to engage with the related foreign adoption authority. In cases in which the intent was to immigrate the child all along, this may be indicative of visa fraud.
b. Four common scenarios:
(1) Family Adoptions: The greatest number of the cases described above involves PAPs who are already related, either biologically or through marriage, to the children being adopted. In many cases, the children’s birth parents are still alive, living in the COO, and are in regular contact with their children. One common scenario is for children to travel to the United States on tourist or student visas to stay with uncles/aunts, and then for those uncles/aunts to adopt the children in order that the children may remain and be educated in the United States;
(2) Hosting Programs: Some COOs permit older children residing in orphanages to participate in short-term (typically ranging from six weeks to three months) winter holiday or summer camp programs in which the children travel to the United States and stay with host families. These programs are not federally regulated and are coordinated between private organizations in the United States and relevant authorities in the COO. Participating children may or may not be eligible for adoption under the laws of their COO. Regardless of eligibility for intercountry adoption, no program for which children receive temporary visitor visas is authorized to permit children to be adopted during their temporary visit. In the case that a child in visitor status is adopted in a state court, the child may have difficulty adjusting status, particularly if the child is from a Convention country;
(3) Medical Cases: Similar in nature to hosting programs are the cases of foreign children who have traveled to the United States to obtain long-term medical care that they cannot receive in their COOs. Children with chronic illnesses, birth defects, or traumatic injuries (such as extensive burns or a need for prostheses) often receive tourist visas, travel to the United States for care, and live for extended periods with U.S. host families. Such arrangements occur with the consent of COO officials, who may require host families to agree in writing that they will not attempt to adopt the children during the children’s time in the United States; and
(4) Unaccompanied Minors: These cases involve foreign born children who come to the attention of U.S. state/local social services agencies after having been orphaned, abused, neglected, or abandoned by their birth parents in the United States or who entered the United States without a parent. In some instances, the children’s parents were in the United States illegally and have been deported. In others, how the children entered the United States is not known. While practices vary among jurisdictions, U.S. social services agencies may take these children into the child welfare system, place them with foster families, and eventually consider permitting them to be adopted without considering immigration implications.
c. Consular Involvement: The Department may learn about such cases from several different sources, including state/local judges, foreign government officials, the prospective adoptive families themselves, or the media. Overseas posts that learn of these cases should bring them to the attention of CA/OCS/CI/BL, including both the facts as known and the source of the information. CA/OCS/CI/BL will inform post of cases involving the host country that are pending in the United States and seek post’s input/guidance on possible COO reaction.
d. Immigration Considerations: The ramifications of immigration law in cases involving the adoption scenarios noted in part (b) above are critical. Although USCIS may eventually be able to adjust the status of such adopted children, this will not be true in all cases.
e. Liaison with Host Governments: Posts may be asked to discuss the cases with COO government officials. These sensitive cases have the very real potential of undermining future intercountry adoptions with specific COOs. Particularly in cases where children are in the United States for medical care or as participants in short-term hosting programs, officials in the children’s COOs may view the completion of a U.S. adoption as an intentional flouting of their own laws and usurping of that government’s authority to take decisions regarding the placement and well-being of its citizen children. Although COOs have little recourse for enforcing such requirements, the Department has on occasion intervened with local U.S. authorities to note the larger considerations and has successfully arranged for children’s return to their COOs.
7 FAM 1795 Accreditation and approval of adoption service providers
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
7 FAM 1795.1 Background: The IAA and the Accreditation System
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Prior to passage of the IAA in October 2000, state licensing law alone governed most aspects of intercountry adoption. The IAA established how the United States would meet its obligations under the Adoption Convention. It created a system of accreditation/approval and oversight of ASPs through accrediting entities selected and designated by the Department. The IAA defines when an ASP needs to be accredited or approved to provide adoption services. The IAA also sets forth the accrediting entities’ oversight responsibilities and creates a system of adverse actions (including some by the Department) that may be taken against ASPs who fail to substantially comply with intercountry adoption regulations. Upon implementation, the IAA’s requirements applied only to intercountry adoptions between the United States and other Convention countries.
b. As of July 14, 2014, the UAA extended the IAA’s safeguards, including accreditation requirements, to cases involving children being adopted from countries not a party to the Adoption Convention and the parties involved in those cases. The UAA requires that ASPs are held to the same federal standards and accreditation processes no matter from which country a child is being adopted. If post believes a case may have been grandfathered under pre-UAA transition provisions, they should contact CA/OCS/CI/AO for guidance.
c. In addition to services an ASP contractually agrees to provide to PAPs, under the U.S. Convention process (and in accordance with Article 22 of the Convention) ASPs will generally perform the case-specific Central Authority duties set forth in Articles 15 through 21, with the exception of agreement under Article 17(c) that the adoption may proceed. Consular officers are responsible for making the agreements of Article 17(c). See 9 FAM 502.3-4(D)(6).
7 FAM 1795.2 Accreditation and Approval of Adoption Service Providers (22 CFR Part 96)
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Standards for Adoption Service Providers (ASPs): The Department published its final regulations on accrediting and approving adoption service providers, 22 CFR Part 96, in February 2006. This set of regulations was the culmination of six years of consultations with and comment from the U.S. adoption community, U.S. child protection professionals, Congressional staffers, and the public at large. It specifies the process and standards for accrediting and approving ASPs by the designated accrediting entities.
b. Accrediting Entity Responsibilities: The Department may designate one or more accrediting entities (AEs). AEs operate under Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) signed with the Department. AEs receive applications from ASPs for accreditation or approval, evaluate applicants, accredit/approve those ASPs that are in substantial compliance with the accreditation/approval standards, monitor ASP compliance with the IAA, UAA, and the accreditation regulations following accreditation/approval, and take adverse action as appropriate against those ASPs that are no longer in substantial compliance. Pursuant to the MOAs, AEs must coordinate closely with the Department through CA/OCS/CI/AO. Posts with inquiries concerning AE actions or functions should direct them to CA/OCS/CI/AO.
|
NOTE: Non-profit entities are “accredited” while individuals or private, for-profit entities are “approved.” The requirements and standards for compliance are virtually identical with an added requirement that home studies performed by approved persons must be supervised by an accredited agency. |
c. CA/OCS/CI Adoption Oversight Responsibilities: CA/OCS/CI/AO is the division responsible for providing Department oversight of the AEs. It must ensure that AEs fulfill their duties as outlined in 22 CFR Part 96 and in the MOAs. CA/OCS/CI/AO accomplishes this oversight responsibility by coordinating closely with the AEs; conducting both formal and informal ongoing monitoring of AE performance and requiring corrective action or taking adverse action as defined in 22 CFR Part 96 when warranted; and reviewing and, when warranted, investigating complaints against AEs.
d. AEs are responsible for evaluating whether ASPs are in substantial compliance with the accreditation standards under 22 CFR Part 96. Whenever a complaint is filed, the AE evaluates whether the alleged conduct impacts the agency's current accreditation. The AE can also consider posts’ report(s) when the ASP applies for accreditation renewal, at which point patterns of conduct may be apparent.
e. Taking Adverse Action Against ASPs: AEs have primary responsibility to take adverse action against ASPs that are not in compliance with the regulations. When AEs fail or refuse to take action, the Department may suspend or cancel accreditation or approval if the Department finds that such action will protect the interests of children;
(1) Will further U.S. foreign policy or national security interests; or
(2) Will protect the ability of U.S. citizens to adopt children.
f. What accreditation means to the consular officer abroad: In practical terms, every ASP who works on an intercountry adoption must be accredited or approved, or supervised by an accredited agency or approved person, or subject to the rare UAA “grandfather” exemption referenced above. In many cases, post will work directly with an accredited or approved ASP. Post will also encounter cases handled by foreign supervised providers, who themselves do not have to be accredited or approved but must act in accordance with the relevant regulations under the direct supervision of an accredited or approved ASP. Failure to supervise any foreign supervised provider requiring supervision puts the accreditation of the supervising ASP at risk of falling out of substantial compliance and adverse action. Thus, the supervising ASP has a responsibility to ensure that its supervised provider adheres to the standards. A list of accredited and approved ASPs is maintained on the Department’s website and is updated as changes occur.
g. Keeping the Department Informed: It is important that posts inform CA/OCS/CI/AO about actions that cause questions about compliance with accreditation standards, including those pertaining to effective supervision of foreign supervised providers or providers not following local laws. Posts should contact CA/OCS/CI/AO as soon as information is available, even if post is unsure the actions represent non-compliance or does not have proof of problematic behavior. CA/OCS/CI/AO will review the information with post and may file a formal complaint against an ASP for the AE with jurisdiction over it to review for compliance issues. Information on substantiated complaints against specific ASPs is published on the Department’s website.
h. Assisting the Department to Confirm Information about improper actions: Through complaints or communications from prospective or adoptive parents, foreign adoption authorities, or the public or other sources, such as media reports, the Department may become aware of actions by ASPs or their foreign supervised providers that raise concerns of compliance with accreditation standards. In such cases, CA/OCS/CI/AO may request that posts share observations or provide other related information (copies of relevant documents) about the alleged actions, which it will then relay to the AE. The AE determines whether a complaint is substantiated and whether the ASP remains in substantial compliance. In that respect, the information sent to the AE should be factual and non-conclusory in nature to let the AE draw its own conclusions from the concerns raised by the complainant and/or the Department. Information from the Department about ASP conduct and specific concerns helps the AE fulfill its monitoring and oversight responsibilities. Posts receiving requests from CI should endeavor to provide the information requested , consistent with post resources, in a timely manner, and provide the resulting information to CA/OCS/CI/AO for review and action. Posts may also be contacted directly by a reviewer from the AE for information regarding posts’ observations or understanding of process and procedure in a COO. With due consideration to the restraints of posts’ resources, CA/OCS/CI/AO encourages posts to assist them in a timely manner.
i. If post has concerns that any ASP or its supervised providers has engaged in illegal or unethical practices, such as bribing foreign officials or providing false or misleading information to birth parents, post should forward this information to CA/OCS/CI/AO, who will coordinate with CA/FPP and L/CA to determine the appropriate course of action. Similarly, if you are aware of ASPs that are not accredited, but for which there is evidence or concerns of illegal or unethical practices, please report that information to CA/OCS/CI/AO. If you believe a U.S. citizen and/or an ASP may have violated U.S. law, please notify your RSO and CA/OCS/CI/AO who can advise on how best to refer the case to the appropriate federal authorities for investigation.
7 FAM 1796 CONVENTION ADOPTIONS
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. The adoption convention is a multilateral treaty that provides a framework of safeguards for protecting children and families involved in intercountry adoption. It was developed under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (the Hague Conference) at The Hague, the Netherlands. The treaty was concluded May 29, 1993. The United States signed the treaty on March 31, 1994, and the President transmitted the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent on June 11, 1998. On September 20, 2000, the Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention and, at the same time, Congress enacted the implementing legislation for the Convention, the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA). Consistent with the Senate’s advice and consent, the United States could not ratify the Convention (and thus become a party to it) until it was able to carry out its obligations under the Convention, as specified by the IAA. The United States deposited its instrument of ratification to the Adoption Convention with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, depositary of the Convention, on December 12, 2007, and the Convention entered into force for the United States on April 1, 2008. As of early 2023, more than 100 countries are party to the Adoption Convention.
b. In general, adoptions involving parents and children residing in countries party to the Convention are covered by the Convention and are subject to the law and regulations implementing the Convention in the United States. (See 7 FAM 1792.)
c. Assessment of Convention Countries:
(1) The U.S. Government has a policy of not objecting, pursuant to article 44(3) of the Convention, to any countries that accede to the Convention to keep all relevant adoption relationships within the Convention context. The Department of State may nonetheless stop processing adoption from a specific COO based on Article 301 of the Intercountry Adoption Act (PL 106-279), if it cannot verify that the adoptions from that country can meet the requirements of the Convention and the IAA;
(2) Before processing adoptions with a country that acceded to or ratified the Convention, the Department assesses whether consular officers will be able to verify in individual adoption cases that the requirements of the Convention and the IAA have been met. This decision includes determining if the COO has designated a Central Authority and key competent authorities to undertake specific responsibilities outlined in the Convention as well as determining if those authorities have the capacity to fulfill their stated function;
(3) The Department also reviews the adoption laws, procedures, practices, and infrastructure of the COO to ensure that key Convention principles will be implemented. Those principles include consideration of subsidiarity, adoptability of the child, the giving of necessary consents, effectuating the agreement to proceed (Article 17), and that adoptions establish a permanent parent-child relationship; and
(4) This assessment seeks to verify that a Convention country:
(a) Has implementing laws or regulations that identify authorities to undertake Convention central authority functions;
(b) Enforces the Convention principles;
(c) Clearly outlines and coordinates authorities’ Convention-related roles and responsibilities;
(d) Has a Convention process that works with the U.S. Convention adoption process;
(e) Authorizes foreign ASPs or ensures that the Central Authority or competent body provides services; and
(f) Ensures that authorities have the capacity and infrastructure to uphold their Convention obligations and conduct effective oversight of the process.
(5) Should the Department determine that adoptions cannot be processed from a specific Convention COO, the Department will inform USCIS at least three weeks before the COO EIF date of its determination and request that USCIS not approve Form I-800 petitions for children from that COO. USCIS will then issue a letter to all Form I-800A applicants who identified the COO in their application to inform them that a Form I-800 petition cannot be approved and that Article 5/17 letters, Hague Certificates, and IH3 and IH4 visas will not be issued with respect to the COO until the Department can verify in individual adoption cases that the requirements of the Convention and the IAA have been met.
7 FAM 1796.1 Department of State Central Authority Functions
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Section 101 of the IAA designates the Department as the U.S. Central Authority for purposes of the Convention, and the Secretary as head of the Central Authority. Section 102 sets forth the responsibilities of the Secretary. (These responsibilities have mostly been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs; see Delegation of Authority 261.) These responsibilities include liaison with Central Authorities in other Convention countries and coordination of activities under the Convention by all parties subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Department also coordinates closely with USCIS regarding many aspects of intercountry adoption processing, including those central authority functions performed by USCIS.
b. In addition, the IAA requires that the Department provide information to other Convention countries, including information concerning accredited and approved ASPs, and federal and state laws relevant to the Convention's implementation.
c. The Department must also ask each Convention country to specify any requirements regarding adoption, including restrictions on eligibility of persons to adopt, and then inform federal agencies and state courts about, for example, persons authorized to perform Convention functions in each such country. The Department will request Convention information from consular officers on an as needed basis, but at a minimum annually in accordance with IAA Section 102(b)(2) and the Intercountry Adoption Information Act of 2019. These are Congressionally mandated reporting requirements that the Department must meet each year; consular officers should prioritize responding to these data calls on time.
d. Another role mandated by the IAA is monitoring individual Convention adoptions involving U.S. citizens. CA/OCS/CI liaises with other Central Authorities; collects and disseminates information, and monitors and facilitates Convention adoptions, as appropriate, by a variety of means including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Direct contact with counterpart Central Authorities in Convention countries;
(2) Liaison with diplomatic offices of Convention countries in Washington, DC;
(3) Coordination with U.S. embassies and consulates to contact Central Authority counterparts;
(4) Liaison with the Adoption Convention's Secretariat, the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law;
(5) Inclusion of Convention COO requirements in CA/OCS/CI’s country information sheets on adoption.state.gov; and
(6) Provision of updated information on accreditation and approval and adverse actions to the Hague Permanent Bureau on its website to ensure this information is immediately available to all Convention country Central Authorities.
e. On behalf of PAPs, CA/OCS/CI may also provide the following services:
(1) Maintaining an email listserv and publishing adoption notices to give the public information about matters of interest and concern;
(2) Maintaining a public email box to respond to inquiries from the general public (adoption@state.gov);
(3) Facilitating communication between PAPs or their ASP and officials in other Convention countries;
(4) Addressing, as appropriate, cases that come to the Department’s attention through the Complaint Registry; and
(5) Addressing cases that come to the Department’s attention from foreign Central Authorities.
7 FAM 1796.2 Convention Records (22 CFR Part 98)
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. 22 CFR Part 98 implements the IAA requirement for rules governing preservation of Convention records and requires that the Department and DHS preserve Convention records as defined in the regulation for 75 years.
b. Preserving Convention records generated or received by the Department: As defined in 22 CFR 98.1, a Convention record is any item, collection, or grouping of information contained in an electronic or physical document, an electronic collection of data, including the information contained in the ATS, a photograph, an audio or video tape, or any other information storage medium of any type whatsoever that contains information about a specific past, current, or prospective adoption covered by the Convention (regardless of whether the adoption was made final) that has been generated or received by the Department or DHS. It includes a record, generated or received by the Department or DHS, about a specific adoption case involving two Convention countries other than the United States in connection with which the Department or DHS performs a central authority function. All Department offices which generate or receive such records must preserve them for the required 75 years, as prescribed in 22 CFR Part 98.
c. Preserving Convention Records Generated or Received by Posts: The preservation requirements for Convention records apply not only to records generated or received in the Department. They apply also to Convention records, as defined above in paragraph b, received or generated by posts. The electronic collection of Convention case data in the Consular Consolidated Database (taken from records created in IVO) and the ATS – even those data collected abroad – will be archived by the Department. All other electronic and physical records received or generated at posts shall be sent for appropriate archiving as directed in the relevant Records Disposition Schedule.
7 FAM 1796.3 Incoming Convention Adoptions (Child Immigrating to the United States) - Processes and Certificates (22 CFR Part 42 and 22 CFR Part 97)
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. INA 101(b)(1)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(G): The IAA made two significant changes to the INA. It created a new definition of child applicable to Convention adoptions, INA 101(b)(1)(G) (“Convention adoptee”). It also incorporated Convention procedures into the immigration process for children covered by INA 101(b)(1)(G), most directly by precluding approval of an immigration petition under this classification until the Department has certified that the Central Authority of the child’s COO has notified it that the child was adopted in accordance with the Convention and the IAA. Of critical importance is the provision in the Department’s implementing regulation 22 CFR 42.24 that a child habitually resident in a Convention country who is traveling to the United States in connection with an adoption must qualify for visa status under the provisions of 101(b)(1)(G) and will not be accorded status under 101(b)(1)(F).
b. Certificate requirements in incoming cases – Consular officer responsibilities: Incoming Convention adoptions are those in which children are immigrating to the United States from other Convention countries. 22 CFR Part 42.24 adapts the immigrant visa process to the requirements of the Convention and the IAA. See 9 FAM 502.3-4 for Convention adoptee visa procedures. Its provisions incorporate the certification requirements of IAA Section 301(a) and INA section 204(d)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1154(d)(2). 22 CFR Part 42 provides that, following notification from the COO that the adoption or grant of custody has occurred, and before issuance of an immigrant visa for the child, the consular officer, if satisfied that the adoption or grant of custody met the requirements of the IAA and the Convention, must issue a Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Certificate so indicating. 22 CFR 42.24 provides guidance on how to determine whether the requirements of the IAA and the Convention have been met, and those provisions are incorporated into 9 FAM 502.3-4. The certificate itself will be generated automatically by the Immigrant Visas Overseas system (IVO) as a controlled step in the process of issuing the immigrant visa at post. The CA/VO/F is responsible for questions and concerns relating to the issuance of Hague Adoption Certificates and Hague Custody Certificates and the retention of copies of issued certificates.
c. The consular section will receive the Form I-800 Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative (Form I-800 petition) from USCIS prior to issuance of a Hague Adoption or Custody Certificate. See 9 FAM 502.3-4 for the order of Convention case processing steps. If the consular officer is unable to certify Convention compliance through the issuance of a Hague Adoption or Custody certificate and therefore cannot approve the Form I-800 petition, they may determine to return the petition to USCIS. CA/VO/F should be consulted and will coordinate with CA/OCS/CI/BL regarding such cases.
d. Older Siblings and Medical Provisions: The International Adoption Simplification Act of 2010 (IASA) established three provisions for Convention adoptees that addressed disparities between the Convention and non-Convention adoption processes. First, the IASA extended INA 101(b)(1)(G) immigration eligibility to children over 16 years old, but under age 18 who are coming to the United States to be adopted by the same PAPs as their younger natural siblings, provided those siblings were being or had been adopted through the Convention process while under age 16. Second, the IASA extended immigrant vaccination exemptions for children under age 10 to potential Convention adoptees. Third, the IASA temporarily created a retroactive provision for older siblings over the age of 18 who might have qualified as older siblings prior to the IASA's passage, had older sibling adoptions been allowed while these individuals were under the age of 18. The retroactive provision expired in 2012. See 9 FAM 502.3-5 for information on processing these cases.
|
NOTE: COO changes to the adoption process may happen at any time. Consular officers must share changes they learn about quickly with CA/VO and CA/OCS/CI/BL so the Reciprocity Schedules and Country Information Pages on travel.state.gov can be updated. |
7 FAM 1796.4 Outgoing Convention Adoptions (Child Emigrating from the United States) - Processes, Certificates and Declarations, and Reporting (22 CFR Parts 97 and 99)
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Outgoing Cases – Another Important Role for the Department:
(1) Because the convention covers both incoming and outgoing adoptions between Convention countries, the IAA created new federal requirements for outgoing cases. Subsequently, the Department promulgated regulations to incorporate these new requirements, as described in the following sections; and
(2) In addition to the rules governing individual convention adoptions, both incoming and outgoing, the Department is also responsible for reporting to Congress about all outgoing adoptions, both Convention and non-Convention.
b. Outgoing Convention Adoption Process:
(1) Outgoing cases involve children adopted in the United States or children with a grant of custody for the purpose of emigration and adoption whose PAPs or adoptive parents reside in another Convention country to which the child has or will emigrate;
(2) These adoption cases are subject to the Convention; agencies or persons engaged in assisting PAPs with such outgoing cases must be accredited or approved and be in substantial compliance with the standards in 22 CFR Part 96. A public domestic authority may provide adoption services without being accredited or approved;
(3) The actual process of adoption in these cases is governed by applicable U.S. state law and practice. State laws governing such adoptions may be found at the website of HHS’ Child Welfare Information Gateway;
(4) However, the state court decree or grant of custody should contain specific findings listed in 22 CFR 97.3 and 22 CFR 96.54(a);
(5) CA/OCS/CI/BL’s issuance of Hague Adoption Certificates or Hague Custody Declarations, certifying that the adoption or grant of custody for the purpose of adoption met Convention and IAA requirements, is governed by 22 CFR Part 97; and
(6) Reporting Convention adoptions, as well as non-Convention adoptions, for children emigrating from the United States is the subject of 22 CFR Part 99.
c. Hague Adoption Certificates and Hague Custody Declarations in Outgoing Cases:
(1) Any party to an outgoing Convention adoption or custody proceeding may apply for a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration;
(2) 22 CFR Part 97 sets forth the requirements for each type of document. Applicants should file the DS-5509 application with CA/OCS/CI/BL, either electronically via email or in hard copy via mail, along with a certified copy of the applicable state court decree or grant of custody. Information on how to apply is published in the "Hague Certificate" section of the "Adoptions from the U.S." section of adoption.state.gov;
(3) CA/OCS/CI, as the U.S. Central Authority, is responsible for receiving applications for both types of documents, preparing them for adjudication, and returning them to the applicants; the CA/OCS Managing Director will adjudicate the applications; and
(4) While 22 CFR Part 97 does not specify a required time frame for completing this certificate process, CA/OCS/CI/BL makes every effort to complete the adjudication process as quickly as possible. Where practical, CA/OCS/CI/BL shall use electronic means to receive applications and supporting documentation to facilitate the process.
d. Reporting on outgoing adoptions (22 CFR Part 99):
(1) The IAA requires creation of a case registry that includes information on children adopted in the United States, or for whom custody has been granted in the United States for the purpose of immigrating to a country abroad;
(2) This case registry is part of the automated ATS. ASPs and public domestic authorities do not have access to ATS to enter outgoing adoptions. They must submit information for outgoing cases using the following link for CA/OCS/CI/BL to create the cases in ATS;
(3) Congress has imposed reporting requirements regarding information collection on all emigrating children, including both Convention and non-Convention adoptions; and
(4) 22 CFR Part 99 addresses collecting information about emigrating children and places the burden of providing this information to the Department on public entities and others involved in outgoing adoption cases.
7 FAM 1797 Non-Convention (Orphan) adoptions
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Adoptions involving parents or children residing in countries not party to the Convention in which the child qualifies as an “orphan” under U.S. immigration law are processed in accordance with INA Section 101(b)(1)(F). 9 FAM 502.3 provides extensive guidance for processing orphan adoptions.
b. As with Convention case processing, USCIS plays a pivotal role in the processing of orphan cases and consular officers perform some USCIS functions when USCIS personnel are not present at post. The USCIS website outlines the office’s role. 9 FAM 502.3-3 contains detailed information on the consular officer’s role in support of USCIS in respect of orphan adoptions, but some additional considerations include:
c. Per DHS regulation, a Form I-604, Determination on Child for Adoption (sometimes informally referred to as the "orphan investigation"), must be completed in every orphan case. See 8 CFR 204.3(k)(1). DHS has delegated the authority to complete Form I-604 investigations to consular officers except in circumstances where the Form I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative (Form I-600 petition), is filed overseas in a location where USCIS has an office. Practically, this means that a consular officer will complete a Form I-604 investigation in two instances: 1) when the consular officer adjudicates the Form I-600 petition that a petitioner has filed overseas in a location where USCIS does not have an office, or 2) when a petitioner files a Form I-600 petition with USCIS domestically, in which case the consular officer generally completes the Form I-604 after the petition is approved by USCIS. Be aware that USCIS may request that a Form I-604 investigation be completed prior to approval of a domestically filed Form I-600 petition where there are articulable concerns that can only be resolved through the Form I-604 investigation.
d. The Form I-604 documents that all the legal requirements have been met and the child is eligible to immigrate to the United States. One of these requirements is that the child can be classified as an orphan under U.S. immigration law and therefore is eligible to receive an IR-3 or IR-4 immigrant visa. Consular officers are reminded that while the Form I-604 investigation must be performed in all orphan cases, they should not begin to complete the Form I-604 until the petitioner has actually filed the Form I-600 petition either directly with the consular section (if eligible) or with USCIS domestically. There is no adjudicatory basis for pre-screening documents until the Form I-600 petition is filed. Any opinions rendered before an immigration benefit is formally requested would be pre-adjudicatory, and therefore inappropriate, unless specifically authorized by USCIS. Posts should refer to 9 FAM 502.3-3(C)(4) for specific guidance on completion of Form I-604.
e. When appropriate and as directed in post’s fraud referral SOP, consular officers may refer a Form I-600 petition or immigrant visa application to the Fraud Prevention Unit for further investigation. Investigators should use the questions asked in Form I-604 as a guide for determining how to best investigate a child's orphan status, along with the USCIS Policy Manual. This form is also the basis for documenting any material misrepresentation or ineligibility of the child to receive an immigrant visa. 9 FAM 502.3-3(C)(3) provides additional guidance on adoption case investigations. In addition, CA/FPP’s Adoption Fraud Prevention Resources on CAWeb provides extensive guidance and information regarding adoption case fraud investigations. Questions regarding this guidance should be directed to the appropriate post liaison in CA/FPP.
f. Returning a Petition to USCIS: There are two separate situations in which posts will send Form I-600 petitions to USCIS. The first situation is in cases where the Form I-600 petition has been filed at post (where USCIS is not present) and the consular officer determined that the evidence of record does not clearly establish that the beneficiary is an orphan as defined under U.S. law (i.e., the petition is therefore "not clearly approvable"). The second situation is when USCIS already approved a Form I-600 petition either at USCIS' National Benefits Center or at a USCIS office overseas and the petition has been sent to post for completion of the Form I-604 investigation and visa application. If, after receiving an approved Form I-600 petition from USCIS, a consular officer becomes aware of serious adverse information -- either from the results of the Form I-604 investigation or through other evidence that comes to light during visa processing — that would likely have led USCIS to deny the petition had it been known at the time of approval, the consular officer should return the petition to USCIS for possible revocation.
g. 9 FAM 502.3(C)(3) discusses when the return of an I-600 petition to USCIS may arise. VO’s extensive Adoption Portal on the CAWeb provides detailed guidance and templates to assist posts to return petitions to USCIS for reconsideration.
7 FAM 1798 COMMUNICATING ABOUT INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
7 FAM 1798.1 Communicating within the Department
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. To provide the best possible service to PAPs, posts need to know where to go for assistance and guidance on adoption issues and processing.
b. TAGS: All cables concerning adoption issues shall include both the "CVIS" and "KOCI" tags to ensure delivery to appropriate offices within both CA/VO and CA/OCS/CI. In addition, cables containing information about intercountry adoption fraud should include the KFRD tags to ensure the information reaches CA/FPP.
c. Immigrant Visa Case Processing Questions to CA/VO: Step-by-step intercountry adoption processing information is contained in 9 FAM 502.3. If you are not sure about how to process a visa for a child adopted abroad, ask CA/VO/F for assistance. Posts covered by a Regional Consular Officer (RCO) may wish to pose their questions, including questions on the basic "how to" of handling an orphan or Convention adoption petition, first to their RCO or at least include the RCO in correspondence with CA/VO/F. You should consult with CA/VO/F and L/CA with questions concerning whether a child meets the U.S. legal definition of an orphan or Convention adoptee, the proper visa classification of a case, as well as those regarding potential ineligibilities. Especially where post is considering seeking revocation of a petition, prior consultations with CA/VO/F can accomplish two things:
(1) Inform consular officers at post whether the case appears to meet DHS's standard for revocation prior to investing additional time and resources; and
(2) Help posts draft revocation memos that DHS is more likely to support.
d. Policy clarifications and inquiries from host governments to CA/OCS/CI:
(1) Posts sometimes receive inquiries about U.S. intercountry adoption policy from host governments. Such inquiries should generally be directed to CA/OCS/CI/BL for a coordinated response. If the inquiry is in regard to the accreditation or activities of ASPs, you may direct the inquiry to CA/OCS/CI/AO that will coordinate with CA/OCS/CI/BL as needed;
(2) In some cases, such requests are routine requests for clarification of Department policies and procedures. Posts may answer these inquiries directly without forwarding them to CA/OCS/CI when using information available on the Department’s websites, such as adoption.state.gov; and
(4) The Department requests posts to inform CA/OCS/CI/BL of its liaison activities with host country adoption officials, particularly with the Central Authority if one exists. Consular officers can determine whether a country is party to the Convention on the Hague Permanent Bureau Adoption Convention Website status table.
e. Finding specific information in the Department: Posts with questions about where to turn to answer adoption specific questions from the public should refer to the "Who's Who in CA" listing on the Bureau of Consular Affairs intranet site that includes program analyst portfolios and contact information for internal Department use. Officers assigned to posts with significant adoption workloads or with challenging adoption issues are encouraged to arrange consultations with CA/OCS/CI/BL, CA/OCS/CI/AO, and CA/VO/F prior to departure for post or when in Washington, DC on other business.
|
See: CA Intranet CAWeb: Who’s Who in OCS/CI Who’s Who in VO
Email (internal to DOS): CA/OCS/CI/BL: CA-OCS-CI-BL@state.gov CA/OCS/CI/AO: CA-OCS-CI-AO@state.gov |
7 FAM 1798.2 Communicating with the Public
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
a. Bureau of Consular Affairs internet website: The Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet website -- adoption.state.gov -- contains a large amount of regularly updated, useful information that will help PAPs, ASPs, and others. Any U.S. citizen thinking of adopting overseas should be directed to the website's materials that, among other things, outline what the Department can and cannot do to assist PAPs. The website explains the role of USCIS in adoption cases and contains extensive information on the orphan and Convention petition and visa processes. The website also offers country-specific and issue-specific notices and alerts.
|
See: CA Adoption.State.Gov internet page CA Intercountry Adoption Country Information Sheets |
b. Country Information Sheets: Country information sheets, also on the adoption.state.gov website, provide country specific information on adoption regulations and requirements. CA/OCS/CI/BL is responsible for preparing, updating, and disseminating information on adoption requirements in foreign countries. Posts should first direct inquirers to the adoption.state.gov website for general information on intercountry adoption. Inquirers may submit case-specific questions not addressed by the adoption website to CA/OCS/CI’s public email address: adoption@state.gov.
c. Email boxes: CA/OCS/CI maintains the following:
(1) Adoption@state.gov. The email address for inquiries from members of the public, managed by CA/OCS/CI/BL;
(2) ASPAdoption@state.gov. The email address for inquiries from U.S. accredited and approved adoption service providers, managed by CA/OCS/CI/AO; and
(3) AdoptionOversight@state.gov. The email address for inquiries from foreign Central Authorities or parties with grievances about an ASP (accredited/approved or non-accredited) and their associates, managed by CA/OCS/CI/AO.
d. State adoption laws: When processing immigrant visa cases related to intercountry adoptions, consular officers sometimes encounter questions relating to U.S. state adoption laws, particularly concerning state requirements after the adoption or grant of custody has been finalized in the COO, including which office in a given state is responsible for adoption. Information on state legal requirements and a wide variety of related information is available on adoption portion of HHS’ Child Welfare Information Gateway website.
e. Concerns from the public about accredited or approved ASPs: Generally, posts should refer initial ASP-related complaints by adoptive families to their ASP for resolution. In instances where the basis for the complaint suggests illegal or illicit practices, adoptive families may file a complaint directly on the Complaint Registry (CR). This action is an important step that triggers the AE’s ability to conduct a review, if appropriate, into matters specifically related to the concern. Subsequent complaints, such as when the ASP's own complaint procedures did not resolve the issue, and complaints by all other parties should also be directed to the Department's CR. The CR may be used by any person or entity, including a foreign government official, to submit complaints about any aspect of an intercountry adoption or conduct by any person or entity involved with an intercountry adoption that raises an issue of compliance with the Adoption Convention, the IAA, UAA, or the regulations implementing the IAA and UAA, including the accreditation standards. These complaints may extend to the conduct of an ASP’s use of supervised providers which may include local representatives, orphanage partners, and other agents working on their behalf. Posts may also advise PAPs that they may file complaints with the state's adoption agency licensing authority or Better Business Bureau.
f. The accrediting entities are required to follow up on all complaints within a specified period of time and may, when warranted, take action against an accredited or approved ASP. A link to the CR and guidelines for its use may be found on the Bureau of Consular Affairs adoption.state.gov web page.
|
See: CA Internet link to the Complaint Registry |
7 FAM 1799 KEY U.S. GOVERNMENT INTERNET PAGES ON INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION
(CT:CON-1029; 10-23-2024)
|
U.S. Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs CA Intercountry Adoption internet page CA Intercountry Adoption Country Information Sheets CA Intercountry Adoption Notices
Family Liaison Office Intercountry Adoption Guidelines for the Foreign Service Family
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) USCIS Intercountry Adoptions
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF) Child Welfare Information Gateway/Adoption |