Regulatory Information regulatorybanner

IssueNet Archive - May 2008

Share |

IssueNet submissions fall into two categories - Report an Issue and Get Liaison Help.

Report an Issue submissions are forwarded to Policy and Practice Committee point people, who send monthly reports with their analyses and recommendations to the Policy and Practice Committee for prioritization and follow up. Submissions to Get Liaison Help go directly to Regulatory Ombuds who follow up with USCIS liaisons at the Service Centers to assist you. To read case submissions from the past month, click on the type of case below.

Your IssueNet submissions are used for:

Agendas for liaison calls and meetings with agency personnel
Prioritizing NAFSA's practice advocacy agenda
Anecdotal support for policy advocacy
Identifying areas for development of training and resources

See What Happened to Your Input!
Visit the Policy & Practice Committee Monthly Update and the SEVIS Liaison Call Summaries.

Total Issues Submitted This Month: 158

Get Liaison Help

Type of Case	Submissions
I-765	18
I-539	7
I-129	19
SEVIS	4
DOS Waiver	1
I-140	1
Total this Month	50

Report an Issue

Type of Issue	Submissions
Education Abroad	1
REAL ID	6
Entry, Exit and Travel	5
J Exchange Visitor	1
SEVIS Issues	7
F Student Issues	5
US Visas and Consular Affairs	15
DHS Adjudicated Benefits and Service Center Issues	24
Social Security	1
H-1B	1
Premium Processing	1
Annual Conference Questions	23
Recertification Rule	2
OPT Validation Exercise	16*
Total this Month	108
*To be summarized and posted later this month.

Education Abroad	Submissions
The new points-based system for UK Academic Visitor Visas for US Nationals may not provide a tier that accounts for the time length, employment status, and nature of work and travel needs of academic visitors entering the UK on a Fulbright research award. Regarding time length: These individuals will be hosted by at UK University for academic activities lasting up to 12 months. Regarding employment status: They will likely not be employed by the university but rather will receive funding from member organization or from their US institution. Regarding nature of work: Their activities will be varied and may include the following: using university laboratories/libraries for research, collaborating on university research projects, conducting fieldwork in the UK, presenting at conferences, lecturing at the university and giving guest lectures. Regarding travel needs: These individuals may also need to travel for professional and/or personal reasons, thus requiring a multiple entry visa. Dependents may also accompany these individuals for all or part of their stay in the UK.	1

Education Abroad

Submissions

The new points-based system for UK Academic Visitor Visas for US Nationals may not provide a tier that accounts for the time length, employment status, and nature of work and travel needs of academic visitors entering the UK on a Fulbright research award. Regarding time length: These individuals will be hosted by at UK University for academic activities lasting up to 12 months. Regarding employment status: They will likely not be employed by the university but rather will receive funding from member organization or from their US institution. Regarding nature of work: Their activities will be varied and may include the following: using university laboratories/libraries for research, collaborating on university research projects, conducting fieldwork in the UK, presenting at conferences, lecturing at the university and giving guest lectures. Regarding travel needs: These individuals may also need to travel for professional and/or personal reasons, thus requiring a multiple entry visa. Dependents may also accompany these individuals for all or part of their stay in the UK.

REAL ID	Submissions
Adviser reports that F1 student’s I-20 did not include his middle name (it is not required in SEVIS) and therefore did not match his passport and visa when he went to renew his driver’s license. BMV said that his visa was expired and that might be a problem. They didn't know what to do about an end date for his license. Adviser added student’s middle name to the I-20 and advised him to try another BMV office.	1
Adviser reports problems for a student attempting to obtain state driver's license. Graduate student applied for and was granted Reinstatement to F1 student status. His I-20 had the red stamp and red ink writing granting the reinstatement of status. BMV employees were concerned about the authenticity/validity of the document. They confiscated the student's I-20, I-797, I-94, passport and Drivers License from another state, all to investigate. BMV held the documents for a week and did not provide a receipt. Student finally got them back when he went into the Licensure Bureau after a week and asked for them.	1
Adviser reports on two REAL ID issues. Now that students on OPT may have either an automatic extension or eligibility for a 17 mo. extension if all the requirements are met, they won't be able to drive to work until they receive the approved EAD. Adviser’s state issues driver's licenses only until the end date on the EAD. Adviser would like DHS to get info out instantly to the state driver's license offices to let states know how to extend driver's licenses 1. For those with the automatic OPT extension, 2. For those who are requesting the 17 month extension and don't have an approval, and 3. To instruct states to include the 60 day grace period. The second concern involves those eligible for the PT automatic extension. What do they show their employers to update I-9s?	1
Adviser reports that student’s I-20 did not list his middle name. Local BMV office sent him away b/c there wasn't an exact match.	1
Adviser reports issue with a part-time H1B faculty member who was trying to renew her driver's license. Faculty member was previously on a J1. Faculty member did a COS and is now H1B. BMV office says she needs to have a letter stating she is currently employed because they wouldn't accept her current contract due to the fact that it expires this month and won't start up again until August; this is how the Academic Year works. Adviser had a phone conversation with a representative from BMV who kept referring to BCIS rules. Adviser explained to her that it is now USCIS. Representative also said the individual should take their I-9 with them. Adviser tried to explain that the I-9 original is with the employer, not employee. Adviser was in the end referred to USCIS website and told to write a carefully worded letter indicating employment is expected through such-and-such date.	1
Adviser reports problems with BMV when H1B employee went to get an updated license to reflect his new address. Adviser believes the BMV suspects fraud. This is the 5th or 6th case in the last 2 years at the same office. The most recent other event was with a J1 Research Scholar who did not have a last name so his SSN card was issued with "FNU" on it. Then his SSN card and passport and visa did not match. BMV investigator held his documents for almost a week. Adviser has had other F-1 students that this has happened to as well.	1

US Visas	Submissions
Adviser reports that an initial status student preparing to go for visa appointment was told by U.S. Embassy that she needed proof of insurance. Adviser checked the latest US DOS Consular Cable and found no need for this document. Adviser also checked the US Embassy website and this document is not asked for there either. Adviser informed the student of this; she called the US Embassy back and was told that this was still required regardless of the fact that this is not listed anywhere. There are three main issues: ff this student had not called the US Embassy to double check what was needed for her appointment this information would not have been available; the college health insurance is unavailable to students before they arrive in the US and can only be activated once the student is present on campus; and the adviser in a busy, one person International Office has to arrange for a letter stating Health Insurance is required by the college, but unavailable until this student comes to campus.	1
Adviser reports that J-1 scholar in the research scholar category called a U.S. consulate to find out the required documents for the J-1 visa application and was informed that in addition to the DS-2019 form; he must also bring Form DS-7002. Institution provided the exchange visitor with the link to the DOS website that explains form DS-7002 is a form required for the intern/trainee category and does not apply to him since he holds the research scholar category.	1
Adviser reports that F-1 student applying to join ESL program for Fall 2008 was denied because of his previous visit to the US as a B2. Student’s I-94 card was issued for 6 months duration, but the student told the Consulate he was visiting his family for 2 months. The Embassy marked his visa with remark: "Visiting Family in Michigan, 2 months, August 2007,” but his I94 card was marked for 6 months duration. When the student applied for his F-1 visa, the Embassy denied it because he ended up staying in the US beyond his 2 months. He stayed for the full 6 months. The institution has copies of student’s I94 card and visa, which both conflict with the information stated.	1
Adviser reports that Chinese H-1B scholar has been asked to attend a conference in France in August, but does not have an H-1B visa stamp in his passport. In order to obtain a Schengen visa for France, he must have a valid U.S. entry visa stamp. If he wants to go to the conference, he must first schedule an appointment at a U.S. Consulate in Canada; then apply for a Canadian entry visa; then go to Canada and apply for his H-1B visa, and then return to the U.S. and apply for the Schengen visa. Moreover, due to reciprocity for China, he will only be issued a 2-entry H-1B visa valid for 3 months, and will use one of the entries just by returning to the U.S. from Canada. The process is time-consuming, expensive, and hinders professional/academic travel.	1
Adviser reports student had difficulty obtaining F-1 visa when the student returned to his home country on B1/B2 visa in order to obtain F-1. When student went to the Consulate, student was told that they believed he would stay in the US and not return, so student was denied the F-1 visa and the officer canceled his B1/B2 visa. The student did everything properly by returning home for the change of status and was still denied.	1
Adviser reports that US Embassy fails to return passport after repeated requests by scholar and R.O. (New) Visiting scholar applied for J-1 visa on 11/28/2006. Application delayed for security checks. Consular post repeatedly asked scholar for new DS-2019 (amended dates) and updated scholarship letter from Higher Education Commission of native country - school provided it to scholar. Scholar finally gave up visa application in February 2008 and requested return of his passport from US Embassy. US Embassy has been unresponsive to both requests from the scholar and requests from the R.O. to return the passport. Scholar has missed opportunity to attend professional conferences abroad because US Embassy is holding his passport - very frustrated and feels treatment by US Embassy is "humiliating and degrading". Regulatory Ombud has contacted the P&P Point Person for Consular Affairs.	1
Adviser reports trend seen from number of US consulates in Africa whereby I-20 issued for ESL study refused and F-1 denied. Consulate told applicants they can only issue F-1 for students who've been admitted to a university (for a degree program). Adviser advised student to have DSO write in Remarks that student is admitted (for degree program) and will continue after ESL studies. The formal, university ESL program does not offer "conditional" admissions and it would be illegal to "admit" a student on an I-20. Institution prepares students for higher English and US academic life so they can be admitted to a US university and succeed. Also, Consulates have required a TOEFL score, but again, this is not a degree program; a TOEFL score is not required for admittance to the ESL program and the I-20 is evidence that student has been officially admitted to program. Thank you.	1
Adviser reports trend that I-20s (for ESL study) are being issued to students from well-renowned schools (with all proof of financial support documented before I-20 issued, of course). Students enter USA on that first school's I-20 and then want to transfer-out before registration. Some feign "money troubles" and need a less expensive school, but most say that the Consulate would not give them an F-1 visa for a lesser-known school or for an ESL program not attached to a major university. This adds so much time and trouble for the DSO (not to mention loss of tuition), and adviser wishes to please reiterate to the Consulates that all I-20s have equal weight under the law. Occurrences are increasing with students from especially Vietnam, but Africa, too.	1
Adviser reports that a student applying for F-1 visa to join our ESL program for Fall 2008 was denied because of his previous visit to the US as a B2. His I-94 card was issued for 6 months duration, but the student told the Consulate he was visiting his family for 2 months. The Embassy marked his visa with remark: "Visiting Family in Michigan, 2 months, August 2007." Yet his I94 card was marked for 6 months duration. Therefore when the student applied for his F-1 visa, the Embassy denied it because he ended up staying in the US beyond his 2 months. He stayed for the full 6 months. Any advice? The student did not "overstay". We have copies of his I94 card and visa, which both conflict with the information stated above. Let me know if i can add more information.	1
Adviser reports on prospective student who applied for F-1 visa at the U.S. Consulate a few months ago. In early March he received the following e-mail from the consulate: "Dear Mr.____: This office regrets to inform you that it is unable to issue a visa to you because you have been found ineligible to receive a visa under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits a consular officer from issuing a visa to an alien if the consular officer has reason to believe that the alien is ineligible. Based on indications that the petition filed on your behalf contains inaccurate information, we are returning it to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for review and possible revocation. If the CIS determines that the information we are providing would provide a sufficient foundation for initiating revocation proceedings, it will send you a notice of intent to revoke. The notice will include a statement of the facts and evidence and you will have the opportunity to respond. Under Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which addresses the confidentiality of the visa records, we are unable to provide any further details. Sincerely, American Consular Officer. "The student has not yet received the letter from USCIS the e-mail is referring to (it's been over 2 months now).	1
Adviser reports that SEVIS system produced DS-2019 documents have an OMB expiration date of 04/30/2008 listed in the upper right corner. Embassies and Consulates are beginning to request that prospective J-1 exchange visitors obtain unexpired forms. The SEVIS system only produces forms with this expired date. Adviser requests that DOS issue a cable informing posts that these forms are valid for use for submitting application for J-1 visa.	1
Adviser reports that student accepted to community college for fall 2008 semester was denied F-1 student visa, according to visa officer, because he was pursuing a two year degree and he should be studying for a four year degree. The Associate's degree and Community Colleges should not be treated as a lesser degree especially since it is a cost effective way for many students to begin their education in the US and most Community College programs are transfer programs. This particular situation occurred at a US Embassy.	1
Adviser reports receiving phone calls from students in India who have received "pink slips" from the U.S. Consulate asking for additional information for security clearances. Students are told that they have to get additional information from the school, but they are not being told exactly what it is that is causing the clearance problem or raising the question. It appears that it may have something to do with the technical majors (aerospace engineering, biochemistry, etc.) that are considered sensitive. Why are these questions being asked, and what is it exactly that the Consulates want from the school?	1
Adviser reports receiving calls from students requesting how to pay tuition in advance, because they've been told by the U.S. Consulate that a receipt for tuition paid in advance is required to obtain an F-1 visa.	1
Adviser reports that F-1 student admitted to the institution was given a "notice of suspension" 221G for failure to show sufficient funds for education. Student was told he needs to show liquid assets totaling $200,000 for 2 yrs. of study for MBA program. It is clear from 9 FAM 41.61 N7 1 that students need to show funds for "the first year of study". Institution has a copy of the suspension notice from the consulate. Student did provide financial documents showing that he has a loan and personal funds. Student was told loan document is not "guaranteed" so would not be accepted.	1
Adviser reports that H-1B visa issuance is taking longer than anticipated. Scholar has had to miss his return flight home and is being delayed returning to work at the institution. Scholar has been told that the delay is due to an administrative process at USCIS and that the embassy is awaiting response. Scholar states that all paperwork was submitted on 04/23/08 for the visa.	1

Entry and Travel	Submissions
CBP Continues to stamp M-1 students’ I-94 and I-20 with the wrong departure date or with F-1. CBP Officers at airports continue to make mistakes with 95% of students, either giving wrong status, incorrect departure date or not issuing an I-94. Can a letter be addressed to the CBP Officer with the I-20 to make sure a mistake is not made? Does CBP plan to have a separate line for students and scholars at the POE? These officers could have access to important SEVIS information such as if the student is in active status. This would reduce the amount of mistakes and confusion at the POE. What documentation should students present when they enter the U.S. for the first time as a student? For a student with a valid M-1 visa returning less than 5 months from finishing their prior course, but with an "initial" I-20 in hand, does CBP request to see the SEVIS fee?	1
Adviser’s school has two other locations with the same name. If a student has a visa for the one location, but an I-20 for the other location, will CBP allow them to use the visa to attend the other school? Can students with an approved change of status from USCIS travel to Canada or Mexico (for less than 30 days) and reenter with the approved change of status documentation and I-20 from USCIS? Canadian and Mexican POE's are allowing students to reenter during their grace period. Is this something new? We were given information that this is not allowed. If a student is at inspections and notices a mistake on their arrival stamps, who can they contact if the CBP Officer is not assisting them with their concern?	1
Adviser submits concerns from students subject to NSEERS for consideration for improved entry and exit procedures: Many of us arrive with very little English language ability which makes for great difficulty in understanding signs and the loudspeaker announcements. We are interested in co-operating, but it may appear that we aren't when we can't understand the directions. We would appreciate signs and announcements in Arabic and other languages used by those who enter the US as students. We would also appreciate the chance to make a phone call home, especially if we have to wait a long time, to let our parents know that we have arrived in the US. “It is very difficult to arrange travel plans when the wait for the entrance interview can take anywhere from 10 minutes to 9 hours. Even if we allow time for this interview between connecting flights, we often need to change our travel plans due to missed flights. Again, when our English is limited, making these arrangements can be difficult. We would appreciate if the entrance interview could be held soon after we enter, with consideration given to connecting flight schedules. This would help us feel welcome.” “We understand from our International Student Advisors that we each were to receive the NSEERS WalkAway material from the immigration officer at the port of entry. Some of us received this document and some of us did not. Please train the officers to provide each of us with this document.” “It is really frightening to parents to learn that their young children will undergo a body search. Even when this is done carefully by an immigration officer, it is difficult for parents to have this done to their children. Please re-think the need for this procedure and cease if possible.” “Exiting the US can be even more confusing than entering, and by now we have more English ability. The ticket agents and airline personnel often don't seem to know where we should go, the immigration office where we are to report to exit is closed for several hours, or we're told we don't have to do anything extra. We are aware that we should "insist" on exiting properly, but sometimes we forget, or when told by the airline personnel to do this or that, we follow their instructions. We don't know if the airline personnel don't receive adequate training or if the turn-over is such that new employees aren't aware of the procedures. Whatever the reasons, it doesn't work well, and if we don’t exit according to the regulations we can have significant problems when we return to the US. Homeland Security has made many changes to the entry/exit system since NSEERS was implemented, and we wonder if these can replace the NSEERS procedures that were designed several years ago.” We submit these concerns with respect to efforts to maintain national security and ask that NSEERS be reviewed and modified to improve the process to enter and exit the US. Thank you for listening to our concerns and requests.	1
Adviser reports that in the last two months three Mexican students have been either denied access to their airplane, been discouraged from entering Mexico from the U.S., or have been delayed in re-entering the U.S. because their F1 visas are expired. None of them was home longer than 30 days. Adviser found nothing in the regulations which makes Mexicans ineligible for automatic revalidation. The student who was denied was actually not allowed to board the airplane; the airline refused to let her board because her visa was expired. The second student was planning to cross at San Ysidro, but was told by CBP that she would need a valid visa to return. The third student was finally let in, but only because CBP realized he’d received faulty advising.	1
Adviser reports that student has been granted the new OPT cap-gap extension by SEVIS and the new I-20 form has been produced, leading to the following questions: Is s/he allowed to travel outside of the US during this extended period? What documents will the student need to produce at the POE to re-enter the US? If the student's F-1 visa stamp is expired, will s/he need to interview for a new stamp prior to re-entry to the US? Will the student need to request an extended EAD from the USCIS' service center? What is the process for doing so? If the student can apply for an extended EAD, can they do so in person at a local USCIS office? If the student has dependents, how can the dependents show they still have validity to remain in the US? What are the travel implications for the dependents?	1

H-1B Issues	Submissions
Adviser reports that when she sends a letter to the Director of the SC notifying of any changes in the terms and conditions of employment, she gets back the letter with a letter regarding the inquiry and told to contact the National Customer Service number. Adviser has not had this problem with other service centers; she has gotten back letters stating they have withdrawn or revoked the petition.	1

SEVIS issues	Submissions
Adviser reports a SEVIS record whose status was completed automatically by CLAIMS when a change of status to H-1B was approved recently. The student is currently engaged in the Optional Practical Training with an EAD valid until 6/22/2008. According to the SEVIS Help Desk, in order to revert the status back to “active”, DSO must submit a cover letter requesting a datafix, along with a copy of the H-1B approval or receipt notice to the SEVIS Help Desk, despite the origin of the error was from the CLAIMS. Per representative from the Help Desk, this is a standard procedure for all datafix. As this appears to be a glitch in the system, advisers do not think that the school should be burdened by the paperwork for datafixes caused by SEVIS/CLAIMS. Already, with the new OPT rules of reporting requirements and cap gap extensions, DSOs are over stretched to comply with the new regulations.	1
Adviser reports that she called the Help Desk on May 15th to ask that a student's record be corrected. The student's record shows an OPT application as status "requested" when the student has an EAD which became valid 01/07/2008. Adviser was told to e-mail SC and was given the Schools e-mail address. While this did not seem appropriate, when adviser pressed the Help Desk rep, he told me he was sure this was the correct route, so adviser sent an e-mail. Adviser then received an e-mail from SC indicating that adviser was the second person to contact them about this issue and that they cannot change anything in SEVIS, the Help Desk must do this.	1
Adviser reports that several times in recent months she has been contacted by schools enrolling former students who failed to initiate a timely transfer and whose SEVIS records have been automatically "Completed." SEVIS Help Desk technicians are telling those schools that the former school (the adviser’s) should initiate a data fix, including phone calls and faxes to the Help Desk, to return the record to "Active" status to be transferred to the new school. This process is (1) contrary to regulations requiring those students to initiate a timely transfer (8CRF214.2(8)(ii)) or apply for reinstatement,(2) puts undue hardship on the former school to "fix" the student's SEVIS record requiring phone calls, faxes, and improper correction requests to SEVIS, (3) confuses DSO's, especially those new to the field, (4) is detrimental to our efforts to maintain collegiate relationships with schools. Correction requests in SEVIS should be for the purpose of correction, not a means to override regulations.	1
Adviser reports that Nursing students who graduate in May 2008 and who have applied for OPT receive an EAD card from SC that does not have a fingerprint on the card. In the box where the fingerprint should be it states: "Fingerprint not available." However, the adviser’s state Board of Nursing will not issue a nursing license (RN) without a fingerprint on the EAD, stating that claim that Homeland Security in the state and in Washington told them not to accept the EAD without a fingerprint. This could affect hundreds of international nursing students who apply for OPT.	1
Adviser requests SEVP to update the I-20 template to reflect a 6 month validity of the travel signature instead of 1 year as it still says.	1
Adviser reports that after multiple requests to SEVP to receive OPT validation report she has yet to receive the correct report. Adviser did not receive it by the deadline USCIS set emailed them as instructed on April 11. The first report received was for a different university. Adviser replied and requested the correct report and included school's code. The subsequent report I was sent was password protected and there were no instructions as to opening the report. Adviser has emailed SEVP a total of 4 times and left two messages regarding this situation. Adviser spoke to someone on or around May 5 who said they would email the report immediately. Adviser has received no responses regarding the issue.	1
Adviser reports in response to the SEVIS 5.8 maintenance clean up. Adviser was going to request "correction" to a student's record; office requested the student’s post-completion OPT on 4/3/2007. The student’s OPT request is therefore pending for over 180 days according to SEVIS RTI. The student was in fact approved for the OPT and has an EAD card. With her EAD card number, adviser was going to request change to student request. The student’s SEVIS record indicated that there were 3 OPT requests; canceled, requested, and approved. When adviser clicked request change to student request page, it indicated the request dates. The OPT request of 4/3/2008 was requested, while the OPT request of 5/14/2008 was approved with the receipt number, which was the same as her receipt number for the OPT requested on 4/3/2007. Office never requested the OPT on 5/14/2008. Instead updating the OPT record for the correct record to reflect “approved,” somehow there is another request indicating the same OPT dates with approval notice, leaving the original request requested. The SEVIS helpdesk’s guidance was to submit correction for the original OPT request and to request a datafix by faxing a letter explaining the situation and a photo copy of the student’s EAD card. Not only CLAIMS are not updating the SEVIS records accurately, they are also creating incorrect data in the student record.	1

J Exchange Visitor	Submissions
Adviser began working on redesignation in March 2008, but Instructions after submitting redesignation request were unclear. Adviser had difficulty with Pay.gov as no one in the office had high enough limit on a credit card to pay it. Adviser went to the Director who also had to get an increase on credit card limit to pay the fee. DS-2019 forms were pulled because the redesignation was not received or did not get to the appropriate office/person, etc. No one called to inform adviser of this and DS-2019 allotment was withdrawn. Forms and documentation that were faxed to DoS after phone conversation were not on file and supposedly never received on April 2, 2008. Institution has no DS-2019 forms and a visiting researcher who is in need of the form so he can apply for his visa before the end of this month while he is in another country. All requested/required documents were re-faxed today and still the adviser does not have even a small allotment to use, despite assurances that if all the above items were faxed more would be sent.	1

J Exchange Visitor

Submissions

Adviser began working on redesignation in March 2008, but Instructions after submitting redesignation request were unclear. Adviser had difficulty with Pay.gov as no one in the office had high enough limit on a credit card to pay it. Adviser went to the Director who also had to get an increase on credit card limit to pay the fee. DS-2019 forms were pulled because the redesignation was not received or did not get to the appropriate office/person, etc. No one called to inform adviser of this and DS-2019 allotment was withdrawn. Forms and documentation that were faxed to DoS after phone conversation were not on file and supposedly never received on April 2, 2008. Institution has no DS-2019 forms and a visiting researcher who is in need of the form so he can apply for his visa before the end of this month while he is in another country. All requested/required documents were re-faxed today and still the adviser does not have even a small allotment to use, despite assurances that if all the above items were faxed more would be sent.

F Student Issues	Submissions
Adviser reports question about F-1 students’ part-time enrollment due to pregnancy. Students bring letters from their doctors confirming the pregnancy, but no special medical condition associated with it. At one of NAFSA conferences some years ago an immigration officer stated that pregnancy alone is not a reason for medical part-time authorization, that there must be other conditions associated with it to qualify for the part-time authorization. Is this still how DHS sees the matter? Is pregnancy alone (no complications) a valid reason to authorize part-time enrollment?	1
Adviser reports being contacted in the fall by an ICE agent asking to verify enrollment information on a particular student. Adviser confirmed with the agent the information he already had. The officer then proceeded to contact the student directly (via phone) to ask her questions about her family, housing, and school situation. The officer was very polite, very professional, but when she asked why he was calling her, after having talked to the adviser, he said he couldn't divulge the information. Recently, and the agent called the student again and left a voicemail asking the student to call him back for a "follow-up." Adviser has asked the student to make sure to write down any questions the officer asks and to refer him to the university if he has questions.	1
Adviser reports on the Border Commuter category, as a sub-category of the F-1 visa, which has existed for five years. The original congressional initiative and the law passed in 2002, provided for a new visa category, F-3. No rules have been promulgated for this category, although adviser understands the capacity exists within consular databases to issue such a visa. In the mean time, the provision for the F-1 sub-category calls for a date-certain admission, which has not been happening. The original reason given for this (six months prior to implementation of SEVIS) was to...maintain greater control and oversight to ensure that the student does in fact remain a border commuter student." Adviser feels this is unnecessary, considering SEVIS. While the efforts of INS at that time were commendable, the requirement to issue a new I-20 each semester is unnecessarily burdensome on the schools and the students, and raises numerous questions about continuity of status and eligibility for CPT and OPT. For schools who follow DHS instructions to create a new SEVIS record each term, it creates a large number of unconnected records, creating the potential for confusion at the Ports of Entry. When will the F-3 regulations finally be promulgated, to alleviate this burden and clarify the issues involved?	1
Adviser inquires about the effect of I-485 filing once receipted on either current F-1 or J-1 status, or in the ability to obtain F (or J) status and the incumbent benefits thereby. The only guidance thus far is to terminate a record in SEVIS if CLAIMS has not done so once the green card has been approved. What is less clear is whether the student can rely on benefits such as on-campus employment based on F-1 status, once I-485 receipted, or can apply for the I-20 from us, if worried about underlying status if the PR application is denied. What would dual intent mean if there were effectively no "cancellation" of F or J status when the I-485 is filed? On the other hand it could be argued that as the universities are not USCIS/ICE, it is not their determination to make.	1
Adviser requests clarification on CPT. Currently most schools say they will not authorize CPT unless the opportunity is attached to a credit-bearing course or internship. This is too narrow an interpretation of the regulations. The best example adviser can offer is the case involving nursing students working as Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA). After they have reached a certain level (in terms of clinical experiences completed, etc.) they are eligible to receive CNA certification. Institution’s nursing department encourages nursing students to do CNA work when eligible (for instance during their summer and winter breaks and even part-time during school if the student can handle it with their coursework) because the experience is so valuable. However the students do not receive credit for this kind of work. Adviser interprets the regulations to mean that CPT must always be credit-bearing, meaning international student nurses cannot take part in this valuable work experience. Can advisers only authorize CPT that is attached to a credit-bearing course or internship or can they also authorize it when it is endorsed in writing by faculty as being an appropriate experience given a student's program of study?	1

Social Security	Submissions
Adviser reports that an H-1B faculty member applied for a Social Security number on 4-23-2008. H-1B called SSA and they said his nonimmigrant visa information is still not in SAVE. He was advised to have adviser’s office call Department of Homeland Security. Adviser called the USCIS Customer Service Line, requested information about SAVE, and was told that the faculty member must make an appointment to visit the local USCIS office about this problem. Why should this be necessary? Shouldn't this data be automatically fed to SAVE? When adviser explained that he is currently abroad on business was told that he could ask the nearest US Embassy or Consular post if they can help him. Why should it take a personal visit to USCIS or the State Department to accomplish something that should be routine? The delay in getting an SSN is delaying H-1B’s clinical licensure.	1

Social Security

Submissions

Adviser reports that an H-1B faculty member applied for a Social Security number on 4-23-2008. H-1B called SSA and they said his nonimmigrant visa information is still not in SAVE. He was advised to have adviser’s office call Department of Homeland Security. Adviser called the USCIS Customer Service Line, requested information about SAVE, and was told that the faculty member must make an appointment to visit the local USCIS office about this problem. Why should this be necessary? Shouldn't this data be automatically fed to SAVE? When adviser explained that he is currently abroad on business was told that he could ask the nearest US Embassy or Consular post if they can help him. Why should it take a personal visit to USCIS or the State Department to accomplish something that should be routine? The delay in getting an SSN is delaying H-1B’s clinical licensure.

Premium Processing	Submissions
Adviser reports that SC is now requiring advisers to report certain approval notice problems to them via email. Adviser has contacted service center three times about a premium processed case in which a USCIS error was made on the validity dates. Adviser had requested 3 years and it was only approved it for one (the applicant was eligible for 3 years of H-1B status). Adviser also e-mailed twice with information regarding the case including the problem along with parts of the petition attached showing the error. The response both times was "Requests for review or correction of validity dates should not be addressed via the telephone or e-mail inquiry process unless there is a clear USCIS error (for examples: start date and end date are identical etc...). Request for validity date changes may be addressed though through the timely filing of a motion with fee or an amended petition". This is clearly an error made by the USCIS and they will not fix it.	1

Premium Processing

Submissions

Adviser reports that SC is now requiring advisers to report certain approval notice problems to them via email. Adviser has contacted service center three times about a premium processed case in which a USCIS error was made on the validity dates. Adviser had requested 3 years and it was only approved it for one (the applicant was eligible for 3 years of H-1B status). Adviser also e-mailed twice with information regarding the case including the problem along with parts of the petition attached showing the error. The response both times was "Requests for review or correction of validity dates should not be addressed via the telephone or e-mail inquiry process unless there is a clear USCIS error (for examples: start date and end date are identical etc...). Request for validity date changes may be addressed though through the timely filing of a motion with fee or an amended petition". This is clearly an error made by the USCIS and they will not fix it.

Annual Conference Questions		Submissions
DOS/M Visa Questions	M-1 students are issued F-1 visas even though these students have the I-20MN. Students are afraid to report this to the U.S. Consulate for they fear they will not be issued the correct visa. University advises students to check their visa and to report to DOS for correction. Please clarify the visa correction process. How can M-1 schools assure that the correct visa will be issued by DOS? If a school wants to contact a U.S. Consulate directly, is there a number or contact available for DSO's?	1
New OPT Rule Questions	Is the omission of the 50% counting of part-time OPT (previously at 8CFR 214.2(f)(11)) in the new regs intentional? If so, why? If not, advocate that it will be back in the final rule.	11
	The employer reporting to the DSO during STEM extension is untenable. What is the sanction to the employer is they do not report within the 48-hour period? How will ICE enforce that?
	What happens if a student exceeds the stated maximum aggregate of unemployment during regular post-completion OPT or STEM OPT? What actions are to be taken – and by whom? Who’s notified of these actions and how?
	Was the change to “pre” in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(11)(i)(B) intentional and if so, why? This should return to previous language to cover all OPT, not just pre. (Citation that allows student to file 765 90 days before being enrolled for one full academic year.)
	STEM OPT students will be able to change employers. How will that happen and who will confirm E-Verify? Also, how will the employer requirement to report an absence/leave within 48 hours be required and enforced?
	What is the exact citation that currently requires the employer info for standard OPT in the new regulation? Why is the language so different for the content of reporting requirements between standard and STEM OPT, yet the expectation is the same for content?
	In the regulations “ABD” – all but dissertation OPT is part of post, yet in guidelines ABD is left out – neither pre nor post. Please clarify where ABD OPT is in the regulations. If it is indeed post, then the regulation needs to be changed limiting the application to 90 days prior to completion date for the purpose of filing.
	What are the sanctions and who carries them out if the student doesn’t report every six months with requisite update during STEM OPT?
	Why are the F-1 regulations being used to fix the H-1B problems? We understand that SEVP is not responsible for the H-1B regulations and the role of Congress. Nonetheless, can you assure us as SEVP officials that you have pointed out that there remains a problem with the H-1B regulations?
	To USCIS – When will the CLAIMS data be solely handled by USCIS and not rely on DSOs to do this work? If it is not working, what can be done to address the infrastructure issue?
	At the graduate level, a student may apply for a year of full-time pre-completion OPT and then end up finishing early, for example, defending his or her dissertation. In that case, we recommend that the student can continue to work with the valid EAD for full-time employment. Can we have agreement from our government reps at SEVP and USCIS on this?
SEVP Questions	If a student is temporarily residing in a country other than his/her home country (working, studying abroad), which address should we put in SEVIS – the home country address or the foreign address where the student currently lives?	7
	Students from India with multiple given names and no surname (last name): how should we put their names in SEVIS? I know SEVP Data Integrity FAQ hand-out addresses the situation when the student has only one name in the passport ("If the nonimmigrant has only one name, this must be used as the last name".), but what if the passport has two separate fields for Surname and Given Names, and all the names are in the Given Names field? Are we still to put all the names into the Family Name field in SEVIS?
	Can SEVP provide more guidance concerning international students enrolling in online degree programs which require them to come to campus a few weeks each year but otherwise study online.
	SEVP policy indicates that anyone coming for short-term study, no matter how short the period, should come as an F-1 student. Conversely, some U.S. consulates have advised students that they could/should come as visitors for study less than 5 weeks, and some CBP officials have admitted students who presented SEVIS fee receipts and I-20s as visitors, saying they "didn't need those documents" for short-term study. This makes for a very difficult advising environment and adviser would like to see some resolution of the matter between agencies.
	An F-1 student and his F-2 wife are both in the U.S. He is out of status, will regain his status by leaving the U.S. and returning with a new I-20. Does his wife need to travel with him? Or can she remain in the U.S., and if the F-1 returns and is back in status, she (F-2) will be in status as well?
	Once a student reaches the 90 day unemployment limit while on OPT, do they still get the 60 day grace period? Or are they expected to depart on day 91?
	As regulations are written is there any plan to require some sort of certification for PDSOs and DSOs?
USCIS Questions	Are all USCIS Service centers following the SEVP guidance regarding M-1 practical training? Guidance states an I-539 is filed with I-765 if the I-94 does not cover the OPT period. No date changes are made in SEVIS.	4
	If an M-1 student's I-94 has a one year period, but their I-20 has less than a one year period, does USCIS require the student to apply for an extension to the M-1 status?
	Can an I-539 expedite be requested for a M-1 extension if the student is planning on traveling outside the U.S. and reentering to continue their program?
	The 12/07 version of the I-539 does not have the option for an M-1 transfer. I was given guidance to check "extension" and then write M-1 transfer next to this. Please confirm if this is applicable for both the VSC and CSC.

Recertification Rule	Submissions
Adviser reports there are strong hints of the need for "satellite" campuses to have DSOs on site. Adviser would strongly advocate against doing so. SEVP could have increased the number of DSOs in this rule, but did not. This rule makes it feel as though SEVP will be watching every move that a DSO makes. This, in combination with the new OPT rule (plus whatever else might be coming), puts enormous pressure and large reporting responsibilities on the DSO. Interview of the petitioner - reference is made throughout the new rule of a "DHS representative". Will these "representatives" be contract workers, as the previous group of site visit folks were? What kind of training will they receive, if they are not from the SEVP policy office? Change to the recordkeeping requirements from 1 to 3 years. Could there be any implications for schools that only have records for one year prior to October 1? I-94 information. Why are DSOs going to need to be responsible for something that is available in SEVIS and in the CBP system? "Note to paragraph (g)(1)" - This was used as authority for the 1st data validation project. Suggest proposed changes to narrow the scope, and to clearly define "current status" - SEVIS status and immigration status. "(C) The start date of the student's next session..." Clarification was provided re: "initial status" students, but not for "active status" students. Could 214.3(g)(2)(iii) insert the language of the Oct. 17, 03 M. Garcia memo re: SEVIS reporting? "Site visit, petition adjudication..." 30 day deadline for completing a site visit. What if the delay in doing so is caused by SEVP? Who does site visit? "DHS representative"? "(B) Compliance. Assessment by SEVP of a school petitioning for recertification...may also include examination of individual DSO compliance..." - How will this examination take place - just with SEVIS data, or with the subpoena of a student's record, or something else altogether? What criteria will be used to judge what a DSO has done? "(iii) Each school may have up to 10" DSOs... – Advocate for more DSOs.	1
Examples of increased compliance responsibilities concerning tracking of alumni requiring additional resources from the university: First 12 months of Optional Practical Training University Designated School Officials (DSO’s) must obtain and report addresses and any change of names and/or addresses of graduates during the 12 months of Optional Practical Training (OPT). DSO’s must report any employment or change of employment of all OPT students for the first 12 months. This documentation must include the employer’s name and address, begin and end dates of employment. This employment includes paid and unpaid, part-time or full-time. DSO’s must keep track of the number of days of unemployment before the student commences employment, between jobs, or at the end of employment. This includes travel outside the country if not employed during travel time. For students with multiple “gigs”, DSO’s must keep track of the gigs, and any time there is a period of 10 days between gigs. DSO’s must report all data gathered from students to SEVIS. When the total unemployment reaches 90 days, SEVIS is responsible for terminating the F-1 status. Additional 17 months of Optional Practical Training Students in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields may apply for an additional 17 months of OPT if the employer is enrolled in the E-Verify system. Although the DSO issues the I-20 for this extension, any approval will be sent to the student elsewhere in the U.S. The DSO must rely on the student to inform the DSO of any approval or denial. University DSO’s must continue the above reporting, including the student’s self-reporting. In addition, although not required by regulation, SEVIS now requires us to report the student’s supervisor’s name and contact information. The employer is required to report any end of employment to the DSO within 48 hours. (Note this does not say work days) DSO’s must then report to SEVIS. H-1B "Cap Gap" The cap gap regulation requires additional reporting from the DSO’s, based on information to which we do not have access.The employer will receive the receipt notice. The student does not. DSO’s must extend, or not, F-1 status, based on information in the receipt notice which we, and possibly the student, do not have. The SEVIS system does not allow for this required extension, necessitating us to request a more complicated data-fix from SEVIS. If the employer receives a receipt notice, we extend the F-1 status to June 2. If the employer receives a waitlist receipt, we extend the status to July 28. If there is an approval following this, sent to the employer, we again extend the status, this time to Sept. 30. If the application is rejected, we must enter that in SEVIS, again based on the employer’s receipt, and with a data fix. Recertification DSO’s will be responsible for collecting and reporting the information of the most recent entry to the U.S. This will include the date, and the I-94 number. This has always been the duty of the Customs and Border Protection officer who admits the student to the U.S. at the port of entry. The SEVIS fee for F and J students will be raised from S100 to $200. Issues Required university reporting has increased from one initial OPT report up to 5 required reports, in addition to the on-going reports of changes as they happen. The regulations are so complex, and not even clear with the guidance memo, that it is very easy for a graduate to fall out of status unintentionally. The address and employment information is self-reported by the student, although the DSO, and consequently, the university, is responsible. Students may be working anywhere in the U.S. The extensive data entry must be entered only by DSO’s, no other employee. Employment information cannot be batched using our vendor software. The university is limited to 10 DSO’s to cover all of admissions and advising. This is an inefficient use of the DSO’s time and expertise. These regulations were written to help support the U.S. in attracting and retaining the most educated, brightest, employees, and to increase our international stature. They are counter-productive. The government purports that the regulations are necessary for our national security. F-1 regulations require us to provide detailed reporting on students during the time they are students at the university. If it is so important for national security to track students and their employment following graduation from the university, why are they relying on information reported second-hand from the university which in turn is relying upon unverifiable reporting from students and employers? The U.S. already has an I-9 system, Social Security, and in some cases, E-Verify. If they want to develop an additional system, wouldn’t it be better to have a direct reporting system? These regulations are two of many increasing the amount of monitoring and reporting on students and graduates that have been required in recent years. Universities have spent millions of dollars already to comply with reporting requirements of information which can be verified. The university may be held liable, should anything go wrong, in spite of the fact that we must report on unverifiable information. Collecting the U.S. entry information for all students for all trips into the U.S. is misplaced, and entirely too burdensome. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers admit students to the U.S., and issue the I-94 cards. Why would anyone want this entry information gathering transferred to a school DSO? With 2200+ students, who travel frequently, the burden upon the school is unacceptable. Options for Action Request DHS to set up a system for self-reported data and employer data can be entered directly into their data base. If forced to continue to accept these reporting responsibilities, request a “heads up” dialogue with DHS and other higher education administrators to prepare for additional costs to our budget. We expect that there will be even more tracking and reporting responsibilities in the future. Realize that DHS is doubling the SEVIS fee from $100 to $200 for F-1 students, while at the same time transferring more tracking and reporting responsibilities to universities. Demand that universities remain exempt from the H-1B cap. Lobby against any attempt to subject the universities to the H-1B cap. Request that the H-1B quota problems be fixed by Congress. This may involve a total increase in numbers, or a separate category for STEM fields, or both. Cooperate with professional organizations and other universities to push back on increasing reporting responsibilities to DHS. Realize that other industries, such as the airline industry will also be advocating.	1

Recertification Rule

Submissions

Adviser reports there are strong hints of the need for "satellite" campuses to have DSOs on site. Adviser would strongly advocate against doing so. SEVP could have increased the number of DSOs in this rule, but did not. This rule makes it feel as though SEVP will be watching every move that a DSO makes. This, in combination with the new OPT rule (plus whatever else might be coming), puts enormous pressure and large reporting responsibilities on the DSO.

Interview of the petitioner - reference is made throughout the new rule of a "DHS representative". Will these "representatives" be contract workers, as the previous group of site visit folks were? What kind of training will they receive, if they are not from the SEVP policy office?

Change to the recordkeeping requirements from 1 to 3 years. Could there be any implications for schools that only have records for one year prior to October 1?

I-94 information. Why are DSOs going to need to be responsible for something that is available in SEVIS and in the CBP system?

"Note to paragraph (g)(1)" - This was used as authority for the 1st data validation project. Suggest proposed changes to narrow the scope, and to clearly define "current status" - SEVIS status and immigration status.

"(C) The start date of the student's next session..." Clarification was provided re: "initial status" students, but not for "active status" students. Could 214.3(g)(2)(iii) insert the language of the Oct. 17, 03 M. Garcia memo re: SEVIS reporting?

"Site visit, petition adjudication..." 30 day deadline for completing a site visit. What if the delay in doing so is caused by SEVP? Who does site visit? "DHS representative"?

"(B) Compliance. Assessment by SEVP of a school petitioning for recertification...may also include examination of individual DSO compliance..." - How will this examination take place - just with SEVIS data, or with the subpoena of a student's record, or something else altogether? What criteria will be used to judge what a DSO has done?

"(iii) Each school may have up to 10" DSOs... – Advocate for more DSOs.

Examples of increased compliance responsibilities concerning tracking of alumni requiring additional resources from the university:

First 12 months of Optional Practical Training

University Designated School Officials (DSO’s) must obtain and report addresses and any change of names and/or addresses of graduates during the 12 months of Optional Practical Training (OPT).
DSO’s must report any employment or change of employment of all OPT students for the first 12 months. This documentation must include the employer’s name and address, begin and end dates of employment. This employment includes paid and unpaid, part-time or full-time.
DSO’s must keep track of the number of days of unemployment before the student commences employment, between jobs, or at the end of employment. This includes travel outside the country if not employed during travel time. For students with multiple “gigs”, DSO’s must keep track of the gigs, and any time there is a period of 10 days between gigs. DSO’s must report all data gathered from students to SEVIS. When the total unemployment reaches 90 days, SEVIS is responsible for terminating the F-1 status.

Additional 17 months of Optional Practical Training

Students in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields may apply for an additional 17 months of OPT if the employer is enrolled in the E-Verify system. Although the DSO issues the I-20 for this extension, any approval will be sent to the student elsewhere in the U.S. The DSO must rely on the student to inform the DSO of any approval or denial. University DSO’s must continue the above reporting, including the student’s self-reporting. In addition, although not required by regulation, SEVIS now requires us to report the student’s supervisor’s name and contact information.

The employer is required to report any end of employment to the DSO within 48 hours. (Note this does not say work days) DSO’s must then report to SEVIS.

H-1B "Cap Gap"
The cap gap regulation requires additional reporting from the DSO’s, based on information to which we do not have access.The employer will receive the receipt notice. The student does not. DSO’s must extend, or not, F-1 status, based on information in the receipt notice which we, and possibly the student, do not have. The SEVIS system does not allow for this required extension, necessitating us to request a more complicated data-fix from SEVIS. If the employer receives a receipt notice, we extend the F-1 status to June 2. If the employer receives a waitlist receipt, we extend the status to July 28. If there is an approval following this, sent to the employer, we again extend the status, this time to Sept. 30. If the application is rejected, we must enter that in SEVIS, again based on the employer’s receipt, and with a data fix.

Recertification

DSO’s will be responsible for collecting and reporting the information of the most recent entry to the U.S. This will include the date, and the I-94 number. This has always been the duty of the Customs and Border Protection officer who admits the student to the U.S. at the port of entry.
The SEVIS fee for F and J students will be raised from S100 to $200.

Issues

Required university reporting has increased from one initial OPT report up to 5 required reports, in addition to the on-going reports of changes as they happen.
The regulations are so complex, and not even clear with the guidance memo, that it is very easy for a graduate to fall out of status unintentionally.
The address and employment information is self-reported by the student, although the DSO, and consequently, the university, is responsible. Students may be working anywhere in the U.S.
The extensive data entry must be entered only by DSO’s, no other employee. Employment information cannot be batched using our vendor software. The university is limited to 10 DSO’s to cover all of admissions and advising. This is an inefficient use of the DSO’s time and expertise.
These regulations were written to help support the U.S. in attracting and retaining the most educated, brightest, employees, and to increase our international stature. They are counter-productive.
The government purports that the regulations are necessary for our national security. F-1 regulations require us to provide detailed reporting on students during the time they are students at the university. If it is so important for national security to track students and their employment following graduation from the university, why are they relying on information reported second-hand from the university which in turn is relying upon unverifiable reporting from students and employers?
The U.S. already has an I-9 system, Social Security, and in some cases, E-Verify. If they want to develop an additional system, wouldn’t it be better to have a direct reporting system?
These regulations are two of many increasing the amount of monitoring and reporting on students and graduates that have been required in recent years. Universities have spent millions of dollars already to comply with reporting requirements of information which can be verified.
The university may be held liable, should anything go wrong, in spite of the fact that we must report on unverifiable information.
Collecting the U.S. entry information for all students for all trips into the U.S. is misplaced, and entirely too burdensome. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers admit students to the U.S., and issue the I-94 cards. Why would anyone want this entry information gathering transferred to a school DSO? With 2200+ students, who travel frequently, the burden upon the school is unacceptable.

Options for Action

Request DHS to set up a system for self-reported data and employer data can be entered directly into their data base.
If forced to continue to accept these reporting responsibilities, request a “heads up” dialogue with DHS and other higher education administrators to prepare for additional costs to our budget. We expect that there will be even more tracking and reporting responsibilities in the future.
Realize that DHS is doubling the SEVIS fee from $100 to $200 for F-1 students, while at the same time transferring more tracking and reporting responsibilities to universities.
Demand that universities remain exempt from the H-1B cap. Lobby against any attempt to subject the universities to the H-1B cap.
Request that the H-1B quota problems be fixed by Congress. This may involve a total increase in numbers, or a separate category for STEM fields, or both.
Cooperate with professional organizations and other universities to push back on increasing reporting responsibilities to DHS. Realize that other industries, such as the airline industry will also be advocating.

Service Center Issues

Region I	Region V	Region X
Region II	Region VI	Region XI
Region III	Region VII	Region XII
Region IV	Region VIII

Region II	Submissions
Adviser reports that NAFSA recommended that advisers send a duplicate petition to USCIS so that upon approval they can forward the duplicate to KCC to be entered into PIMS. Adviser would like to know what documents need to be in the duplicate. Just the I-129? Or should all documents be included. If advisers are advised to send a duplicate of the entire petition, why? What will KCC do with all the paper and information?	1

Region II

Submissions

Adviser reports that NAFSA recommended that advisers send a duplicate petition to USCIS so that upon approval they can forward the duplicate to KCC to be entered into PIMS. Adviser would like to know what documents need to be in the duplicate. Just the I-129? Or should all documents be included. If advisers are advised to send a duplicate of the entire petition, why? What will KCC do with all the paper and information?

Region III	Submissions
Adviser reports mailing an H-1B petition to service center, received 1/18/2008, and only now receiving an RFE. The employee will be coming for an Assistant Professor position with clinical duties. Adviser included the license and USMLE scores, but service center requests one of the following: evidence that the alien worker is coming to the US primarily to teach or conduct research, or both, at or for a public or nonprofit private educational or research institution or agency, and no patient care will be performed, except that which is incidental to the physician’s teaching or research; evidence that the alien worker is a graduate of an accredited US medical school; evidence that the alien worker is a graduate of a foreign medical school and has competency in oral and written English that shall be demonstrated by the passage of the English language proficiency test given by the ECFMG. This is a returning employee who was in the U.S. earlier as an ECFMG resident. Adviser is concerned about the time crunch since had to wait until the six months before the start date for the LCA. Adviser not sure if employee can make it in time and is considering doing Premium Processing even though the delay was due to a clerical error.	1
Adviser reports difficulty with H-1B filing. Adviser filed 2 H-1B petitions on 10/29 and 10/31 respectively. On 02/29, adviser called NCSC to request action and soon received service request letters saying the cases were 'still pending.' Shortly after, one was approved on 03/05. On 04/01, adviser called NCSC again concerning the other case but was told to wait 60 days to issue another service request. On 04/04, adviser emailed “schools” address stating that the case was outside normal processing time. They responded saying the case was approved 03/17 and had not been returned. Adviser waited until 4/11 to email again saying he still hadn't received the I-797, and that case status online still showed it pending. On 04/15 adviser got the following response, "Normally the center does not respond to I-129 inquiries through this mailbox because it is not related to a student issue, but _____ did respond, so I will follow through on this case. The notice was mailed to you on March 17, 2008. For some reason the case status online system was not updated. I have placed a request to have the case updated as approved and notice sent. You should see this in a couple days. I have also mailed you a duplicate approval notice. This should arrive in a few days as well. Have a good day." Adviser got the duplicate I-797 a week later, but feels lucky due to one officer's kindness.	1
Adviser reports success due to NAFSA advocacy. Adviser received a duplicate approval notice for an H-1B approved on April 4, 2008 from the Service Center.	1
Adviser submits again regarding the problem with the Service Center and the lost H-1B approval notices from April 4, 2008. Adviser received email from General Counsel at the University advising that the only recourse for an approval notice not received is to file for a duplicate approval. Until the duplicate approval is processed the Dr. beneficiary cannot travel to present a paper at a conference. The university is not filing for a duplicate yet, since NAFSA is still working on the issue, and a duplicate will not arrive in time for her travels.	1
Adviser reports that he has still not received an approval notice mailed on April 4, 2008 from the Service Center. The assistant professor will be attending and presenting at an international conference in Canada later in May and will need to apply for an H-1B visa at the US Consulate. Adviser requested a service action with USCIS Customer Service.	1
Adviser reports that she has still not received H-1B approval notice. Adviser filed an I-129 for H-1B regular processing and it was approved April 3, 2008. Adviser used the office address which has not changed. Adviser called the National Customer Service number on 5/5/08 and was told the only thing to do is file an I-824 form with the filing fee. Adviser asked she could contact the SC and was told to could try that by sending a letter.	1

Region IV	Submissions
Adviser reports that F-1 student's immigration attorney received an RFE stating that USCIS would only accept a letter from the Registrar's office stating that all degree completion have been completed before April 1 in order to be eligible for the H-1B. The petition was originally submitted with a letter from the grad school stating all requirements were complete but USCIS won't accept this. It's not University policy for this student to receive a letter from the Registrar's office.	1

Region IV

Submissions

Adviser reports that F-1 student's immigration attorney received an RFE stating that USCIS would only accept a letter from the Registrar's office stating that all degree completion have been completed before April 1 in order to be eligible for the H-1B. The petition was originally submitted with a letter from the grad school stating all requirements were complete but USCIS won't accept this. It's not University policy for this student to receive a letter from the Registrar's office.

Region V	Submissions
Adviser reports on the new I-765, which has a question that asks for the "Employer's Name as Listed in E-Verify." The question on the form itself does not seem to allow for one to leave it blank. However, on page 3 of the instructions it appears it only needs to be completed, "If you are a STEM student requesting a 17-month extension..." Adviser has talked with schools who are telling their students they must know for whom they are working before they will issue the I-20 authorizing OPT. Must a student know for whom they will be working when they apply for their post-completion OPT? If not, can advisers safely leave that question blank? If not, will adviser be able to generate the Form I-20 copy showing OPT as authorized?	1

Region V

Submissions

Adviser reports on the new I-765, which has a question that asks for the "Employer's Name as Listed in E-Verify." The question on the form itself does not seem to allow for one to leave it blank. However, on page 3 of the instructions it appears it only needs to be completed, "If you are a STEM student requesting a 17-month extension..." Adviser has talked with schools who are telling their students they must know for whom they are working before they will issue the I-20 authorizing OPT. Must a student know for whom they will be working when they apply for their post-completion OPT? If not, can advisers safely leave that question blank? If not, will adviser be able to generate the Form I-20 copy showing OPT as authorized?

Region VI	Submissions
Adviser reports filing several Form I-129 (H-1B) for doctors who are already in H-1B status at other institutions and are coming to adviser’s institution July 1, 2008. However, even though adviser requested an official start date of July 1, 2008, the approval notices begin on the date the petition was approved. Adviser acknowledges that with extensions with the same employer, the date the decision is made is the start date on the approval. But in this instance, approving the case with an early start date makes the institution liable for the salary and benefits as of that date. Adviser has heard from other members that they are having similar issues. It would be alright if the start date has actually passed, but they are giving the adviser start dates 2 months in advance of the person's contract date.	1

Region VI

Submissions

Adviser reports filing several Form I-129 (H-1B) for doctors who are already in H-1B status at other institutions and are coming to adviser’s institution July 1, 2008. However, even though adviser requested an official start date of July 1, 2008, the approval notices begin on the date the petition was approved. Adviser acknowledges that with extensions with the same employer, the date the decision is made is the start date on the approval. But in this instance, approving the case with an early start date makes the institution liable for the salary and benefits as of that date. Adviser has heard from other members that they are having similar issues. It would be alright if the start date has actually passed, but they are giving the adviser start dates 2 months in advance of the person's contract date.

Region VII	Submissions
Adviser reports that applicant for OPT received a RFE stating that while at her previous school she had received over one year of CPT and this voided her OPT benefit. However, adviser has documentation that applicant never received CPT. She had OPT for less than one year for a bachelors level degree at the previous school. Previous school has provided documentation to this effect which she will submit this in response to the RFE.	1
Adviser sent a Premium processed petition to extend employee's status in H-1B, and included an I-539 petition for a dependent. On May 13th, adviser received the Approval notice of the I-129 petition; however the I-539 petition is still pending. Adviser has contacted the USCIS and was told that the I-907 only expedites the I-129 and not the I-539. The H-1B employee is travelling outside the US, and he intends on taking the I-539 beneficiary with him. He will be able to renew his visa stamp abroad based on the new approval notice; however, she will not be able to obtain a renewal of her visa stamp because her case is still pending.	1
Adviser filed request to extend status of H-1B which was approved on 04/03/2008, but has never received receipt notice. Tried contacting “schools” email address and was told this could only be used for student issues. Adviser was referred to National Customer Service number and was told the only thing to do was to file form I-824 with fee. The IO would not confirm that the address in the system was correct. Adviser received the receipt notice without any problems. Why do student issues receive email access to deal with problems but those advisers dealing with employment-based petitions receive no access to the service centers to sort out these kinds of problems? Adviser asked the service center why universities could not inquire of employment-based petition problems and was told that adviser would need to address that issue with the ombudsperson from NAFSA.	1
Adviser reports that he has not received approval notices for the last two H-1B petitions and one corresponding I-539 that were sent to the Service Center. One of the I-129’s was listed as approved on April 4, 2008 and the I-539 and other I-129 were listed as approved on April 7, 2008. To date, no approvals have been received on these cases. Adviser has contacted USCIS customer service and was advised he would have to file an I-824 for another approval to be sent at a cost of $340 each. Is there any recourse other than paying so much for something never received? Employees are unable to renew their licenses, travel or have relatives visit and HR department will terminate their positions once the 240 rule time limit is up.	1

Region VIII	Submissions
Adviser reports that I-539 COS F-1 to J-1 Case Status Online shows it as approved and notice mailed out on 4/16/2008. As of May 8, no Receipt Notice had been received. School address was used which has worked fine for all other cases. Regulatory Ombud has contacted SC to request reissuance of I-797.	1
Adviser requests clarification of N visa rules. If an N-8 visa holder (a relative of a G-4 who became a permanent resident) is hired as a professional non-academic staff member, is this person eligible for immigrant status adjustment during her N-8 status, and therefore an indefinite appointment could already be offered during N-8 status? Prior guidance indicated that "N-8 visa holders are expected to apply for permanent residency," which would seem to indicate that they all become permanent residents.	1
Adviser reports trend that USCIS has been frequently saying that it is sending out some type of notice or approval to the applicant or beneficiary and that the material never arrives. Many times the information is time sensitive and requires a reply, but the only response from the hotline (unless you get a liaison (regulatory ombud) involved) is to wait more time. How can we wait thirty days for a denial notice to appear, when we only get 30 days for the entire appeal process?	1
Adviser reports that an I-129 petition was approved on 4/4/08, and approval notice mailed. As of 5/8/08, the notice had not been received. NCS will send an inquiry to the SC, but has advised that their response could take as long as 45 days, and the scholar is traveling at the end of May.	1

Region X	Submissions
Adviser reports I-797 Approval Notice generated on April 4, 2008 but never received at office. SC has refused to reissue the approval notice without submitting paperwork again and paying the fee.	1
Adviser received email notification that approval notice for I-129 Petition was mailed on 4/3/08 from the Service Center. Approval Notice never received. How do advisers prove non-receipt of a document? Why do advisers need to file an I-824 with a fee when this is not an isolated case?	1
Adviser reports that an H-1B petition filed with SC was approved and an approval notice mailed on April 4, 2008; however, adviser has not received the approval notice as of submission date. Adviser called USCIS National Customer Service Center (after 30 days from I-797 mailing date) and this is what they said: Since the petitioner’s address has not changed and the I-797 has not been returned to them, adviser would have to file a Form I-824 to request a duplicate I-797. This form comes with a hefty fee and adviser feels it doesn’t make sense for the petitioner to pay this amount of money for no fault of her own. Adviser asked if they could connect her with the Service Center where the petition was adjudicated but NCSC declined. Is there any way this issue could be resolved without having to file the Form I-824?	1
Adviser reports H-1B extension petition for adjunct faculty was received on 12/17/2007. Approval notice sent; “On April 3, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I129 PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.” As with many other schools, adviser did not receive the I-797 approval notice at all.	1

Region XI	Submissions
Adviser reports that H-1B petition submitted to Premium Processing for consular notification was approved as a change of status instead, even though the scholar's J-1 status ends 6/15/08, the H-1B start date is 7/7/08, and scholar will be in France in the interim. Adviser e-mailed premium processing on 5/2/08 (the day the approval was received); no reply. E-mailed a 2nd time on 5/7/08; no reply. Adviser called 1-800 number on 5/13/08 and was told to send another e-mail and state the problem in the subject line because they are short-staffed and may not read e-mail right away if they don't realize it's urgent. Adviser sent a 3rd e-mail on 5/13/08 with subject "Third Request: I-129 Approved as COS instead of Consular Notification." Later on 5/13/08 adviser received a reply to first e-mail stating that the file would be requested for review. On 5/14/08 adviser received a reply to second e-mail again stating that the case would be requested and reviewed. Adviser has not heard anything since then. International Office gave the change of status approval notice to the scholar and recommended that he make his appointment at the Consulate for as soon as possible after he arrives in France in case there is a delay due to PIMS verification.	1
Adviser reports I-129 for H1B and I-539 for H4 were approved on 4/3/08 at SC; approval notices never received. Adviser called the 1-800 and have requested the notices be sent but wasn't assured this would happen.	1

IssueNet Archive - May 2008

Submission Archive

Additional Information

Adviser's Manual

Get Liaison Help

Report an Issue

Service Center Issues