Regulatory Information
IssueNet Archive - April 2008
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
Visit the Policy & Practice Committee Monthly Update and the SEVIS Liaison Call Summaries.
Total Issues Submitted This Month: 154
Get Liaison Help
| Type of Case | Submissions |
| I-765 | 11 |
| I-539 | 16 |
| I-102 | 4 |
| I-129 |
5 |
| SEVIS | 5 |
| DOS Waiver | 1 |
| Total this Month | 42 |
Report an Issue
| Type of Case | Submissions |
| REAL ID |
3 |
| Entry, Exit and Travel |
3 |
| J Exchange Visitor |
2 |
| SEVIS Issues | 11 |
| F Student Issues |
2 |
| US Visas and Consular Affairs |
9 |
| DHS Adjudicated Benefits and Service Center Issues |
14 |
| Social Security |
2 |
| Employment Based |
1 |
| H-1B | 2 |
| OPT Validation Exercise | 63 |
| Total this Month | 112 |
| REAL ID |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports consistent problems with local DMV. Each month the local DMV changes the requirements for students to extend their driver's license. Student X went to renew his driver's license because he applied for OPT. Student’s license was renewed for the date recommended on the I-20. However, because the student’s wife's I-20 does not print out the date, the DMV would NOT renew her license, nor would they accept a letter of explanation. If there is any way to inform SEVP that the OPT recommendation should be printed on the dependents I-20's? | |
| Adviser reports that beginning in March, several students in F-1 (student) visa status have been denied driver's licenses because their I-20 forms do not have the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) admission stamp. Adviser prepared letters for the students to take to the DDS explaining that students receive the CBP stamp at the time of entry and because part of the tracking of F-1 students requires that students receive new I-20 forms throughout their academic career that they receive new I-20’s which don’t contain the CBP stamp. Adviser explained that the document that verifies F-1 status is the I-94, and that there are two different versions of the I-94 --one is received at the port of entry and is stamped by CBP and the other is issued by CIS and does not contain a stamp. Adviser offered to meet with the local DDS to help them learn how to read F-1 and J-1 immigration documentation. However, the students are still being denied and told they must get a stamp. Adviser emailed a contact in DDS stating that adviser respects the DDS staff for their efforts to adhere to the new regulations and requesting that she contact the state’s DDS office or have someone else contact them to explain that students may be have valid F-1 status even though not every I-20 has a CBP stamp. Adviser has received no reply. | 1 |
| Adviser reports many issues with local Department of Driver Safety office. Numerous international students are being denied the chance to take driver's license exams or renew licenses even though they are in legal immigration status. One of the biggest issues is the office denying transfer students’ licenses because their current I-20 does not show a Port of Entry stamp. Even when adviser has written letters, or accompanied students to the DDS to help explain why the student does not have a Port of Entry stamp, students are still denied a license. Personnel at the DDS do not seem to understand that a student will not receive a POE stamp unless they actually leave the country after they've transferred. Additionally, there have been a number of issues with students' information being incorrect or not updated in the SAVE system. For instance, students who have an approved change of status have to wait months in order to renew or apply for a license because they are showing as pending in the SAVE system. | 1 |
| US Visas | Submissions |
| Adviser reports that scholar in H-1B is stuck in home country waiting for clearance based on 221g. Scholar applied for H-1B visa at the US consulate on March 26th and was issued 221g form and asked to submit answers to the questionnaire for 221g. Scholar submitted the answers on March 27th via email to the consulate but also had supervisor e-mail and fax a letter in which he explained her research program and its value. Adviser has researched the issue and believes there is a trend emerging with this specific consulate issuing 221g. Adviser does not believe it is a PIMS issue but a visa clearance issue, even though the consular officer termed it an "administrative processing" issue and would not give the scholar and specific information. |
|
| Adviser reports that two scholars in different countries who both had B-1 invitation letters for short, unpaid visits to MIT were told they must get J-1 visas. They both argued and explained why they did not need the J-1. One was sent away and told to get a better letter. The other argued and the Consulate gave in and issued the B-1, although the scholar got the same treatment at the port of entry by CBP officials. These individuals are not students, they will not conduct paid research, and they are coming for periods of six months or less. | |
| Adviser reports receiving a visa revocation letter from US Embassy that she has never seen before. Student received the letter as an email attachment. Adviser had looked up Section 212(A)(3)(B) of the INA and it refers to visa ineligibility due to "terrorist activities". The student is currently enrolled in ESL program and has been maintaining lawful F-1 status since Autumn 2007. Student has no idea why he could have received this notice. Adviser does not believe student needs to leave the US at this time. The letter seems to be more of a warning that student will need to re-apply for a visa after leaving the US and should expect certain difficulty/challenges establishing his eligibility for a visa in the future. Adviser told student that he should seek help from an immigration attorney so that the attorney could help him to gather further information and/or provide advocacy and supporting documents for his visa application. ----------------------------- “Mr. XXXXXXXX, The Acting U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services Stephen A. Edson has signed a Certificate of Revocation on 22-FEB-2008 revoking any and all nonimmigrant visas issued to you for travel to the United States. The following text is quoted from the Certificate of Revocation: “This is to certify that I, the undersigned Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services, acting pursuant to the authority conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 221(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201 (I) ), which has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs and to me by Delegation of Authority no. 74 and Redelegation of Authority no. 4-3-A, hereby revoke any and all nonimmigrant visas issued to XXXXXX, XXXX (DPOB: XX-XX-XX, Saudi Arabia). This action is based on the fact that subsequent to visa issuance, information has come to light indicating that the alien may be inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to receive a visa under Section 212(A)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, such that the alien should be required to reappear before a U.S. consular officer to establish his eligibility for a visa before being permitted to apply for entry to the United States. This revocation shall become effective immediately on the date on which this certificate is signed unless the alien is present in the United States at that time, in which case it will become effective immediately upon the alien’s departure from the United States." Sincerely, Acting Consul General” |
|
| Adviser reports that at least 4 times in past 2 months U.S. Embassy in Paris has requested J-1 Research Scholar and Short-term Scholar visa applicants holding DS-2019 forms to submit a DS-7002 when it is not relevant. The embassy website has misleading information posted on this topic. |
|
| 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 the visa denial of a person who was applying for a tourist visa to visit a student in the US. This student had been given a visa to attend a different campus in California, and then transferred to the New York campus after his arrival. Student is in good status. The person applying for the tourist visa was denied a visa to visit the student because the consular officer said that the student is "misusing his visa" because he is at another campus. Consular officer also said that student should return home and apply for a new visa, seeming misinformed about the ability of F-1 students to transfer to other schools. The person applying for the tourist visa was given the usual Section 214(b) letter for her denial. For evidence of ties to her country she had provided many documents including: her acceptance to University in home country to study law, letter from the university confirming her position and return, university itinerary showing an employment letter, proof of her residence, proof that both parents own businesses in home country, and financial documents. Adviser does not think it is typical that she would be denied a visa. Adviser is concerned that the Consular officer is uninformed of the legality of students being able to transfer schools in the US and is relying on this misinformation to deny visas to otherwise eligible visitors. As well, this misinformation could be used to deny other F-1 students who return to get visas renewed, after having transferred schools. | 1 |
| Adviser reports delay due to SAO. Incoming J-1 Research Scholar applied for a J-1 visa at the U.S. Consulate on 1/11/08. Scholar was told the visa would be issued within a week unless there was a problem but that the application needed to go to Washington for further administrative processing. It has been almost 12 weeks since the visa application and the scholar has not been able to get any information from the Consulate other than "it's pending." | 1 |
| Adviser reports PIMS problem with H-1B visa. Adviser and employee obtained an approval of an H-1B petition, with a change of status effective 7/15/2008. Petition was approved on March 14. They did not submit a duplicate petition for the KCC. Employee now plans to travel in July and needs an H-1B visa to return. Employee contacted the Consulate and asked if they could see his PIMS record. Consulate replied that employee was not in PIMS. What can adviser and employee to do to get his data into PIMS so employee will not have long delays when he applies for the visa? Can they send anything to the KCC directly? | 1 |
| Adviser reports that consular appointments in Dubai were cancelled after April 1. The only notice was a Public Announcement on their website. One student found out her mother's appointment was cancelled only because the student was in the US double-checking all documents and dates the day before her mother's appointment. The brother accompanying her mother (he was not applying for a visa) was already on the plane to Dubai. Was there andattempt to contact people with appointments to let them know? | 1 |
| Entry, Exit and Travel | Submissions |
| Adviser reports POE has been retaining I-20s instead of returning to student. Student says that when he has presented a new I-20 for approved CPT, all POEs insisted that he hand over any I-20s even though adviser advised him to keep all such documents in the event of a change of status. Now, student only has available to him the photocopies that adviser kept in file. Student is a naturalized Canadian citizen, born in an NSEERS country, about to receive his doctor of pharmacy and about to apply for a change to TN status for an offered job. The lawyers at new company have appropriately asked for all of the student’s original I-20s. Adviser will write a letter of explanation that student can send with the photocopies. |
|
| Adviser reports that at multiple airports, individuals with invitation letters for B-1 unpaid business visits to adviser’s campus have been told they should have come J-1. In one instance, airport officials threatened to send the person home. Both of the scholars argued vehemently until they were admitted in B-1 status. These scholars are not undergraduates at home or some other young group who are more appropriately brought in another status. These are professionals in their home countries. The visits were unpaid visits to observe, collaborate and attend meetings. Adviser believes the problem may get worse over the summer when less experienced CBP inspectors go onto the front line. Note: Similar things are happening at US consulates. | 1 |
| Adviser reports issue at the port of entry. H-1B/pending I-485 entered with children. He came in on automatic revalidation, children tried to use advance parole. Children were told that because they were dependents, they had to enter with same type of documentation as the father, could not use their advance parole. Adviser has heard of similar cases. | 1 |
| Employment Based |
Submissions |
| Adviser seeks clarification from USCIS on whether or not Advance Parole requests are affected by their 3/5/08 revised instructions on the filing of Form I-131. |
| SEVIS issues | Submissions |
| Adviser reports that the records for students whose H-1B applications have been approved to start in October are being terminated before the actual benefit start dates. | |
| Adviser reports issues with SEVIS. F-1 Student (currently on OPT until 8/12/08) has approval notice for COS to H1-B. Per SEVP Policy Guidance 0801-01 (Updates for Post-Completion OPT), adviser called the SEVIS Helpdesk to request a data-fix for student. According to the Guidance, SEVIS will use data from CLAIMS so that DSO can print out new Form I-20 showing an extension until September 30th. SEVIS Helpdesk Associate told adviser that they have been instructed not to make any changes on their end; however, they are currently seeking guidance. He suggested that adviser email details of the issue to sevis.source@dhs.gov. | 1 |
| Adviser requests guidance on how to request a data fix for students who are eligible on the ‘cap-gap’ extension and their authorizations have not been updated in SEVIS. Under Section 9.3.1 in the 'SEVP Policy Guidance 0801-01' the DSO needs to request a data fix and provide evidence that the student is entitled to the extension. However –upon calling the Help Desk (twice) they do not know how to process the data fix under this guidance. They have requested information from SEVP and have not received an answer. Adviser has emailed sevis.source with the above, but the issue is that adviser has students completing 5/15/2008 with H1B application receipted. Their employers are looking for the authorization on the I-20 form. | 1 |
| In late December 2007, adviser’s institution electronically submitted an update to its I-17 that requested the approval of new academic programs and the addition of two new campuses. On December 19th, 2007, institution’s PDSO received an e-mail from SEVP asking them to submit payment for the site visits required to add the two new campuses. On January 1st, 2008, payment of $930.00 was made via the Pay.Gov system. On January 18th, 2008, a site visit was conducted at one of the new campuses. On January 29th, 2008, a site visit was conducted at the other. On March 3rd, 2008, an e-mail explaining that the institution had overpaid when it previously submitted $930.00 was received from SEVP, and institution received a refund of $230.00. On March 24th an e-mail was received from SEVP saying that the petition to update institution’s I-17 was denied. The morning of March 24th the international office received a call from SEVP saying that the institution could resubmit I-17 to add one of the campuses since the denial of the petition had been based on issues concerning the other, and that the school would not need to pay any fees to request this update, since a site visit had just been conducted. Per the instructions given in this phone call, the institution resubmitted the I-17 to add the desired academic programs & degrees and the one campus without submitting any payments. Unlike in December, 2007, the PDSO did not receive any subsequent e-mail from SEVP instructing the institution to submit fees for site visits. On April 22nd, 2008, PDSO received an e-mail from SEVP saying that petition was denied. The e-mail read . . . “After a thorough review, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) has denied your petition update. The reason(s) for denial is/are: On 3/25/08 your school submitted an update to add a Doctoral degree, an Engineering program, Language training, and the Health Professions campus. On 3/31/08 SEVP requested payment for a site visit at the campus, and payment was not remitted. Your update has been denied, and your school may not issue Forms I-20 for the campus.” Institution is very concerned about the basis of this denial, as it was instructed by a SEVP employee that they did not need to submit any fees to re-submit I-17 in order to add the campus. Adviser also affirms that no electronic notifications that fees needed to be submitted were received by PDSO, despite the statement in the above e-mail that the payment of fees had been requested by SEVP on 3/31/08. |
1 |
| Adviser reports that now that version 5.8 of SEVIS is up and running, none of current post-completion OPT students whose initial period of OPT began PRIOR to their degree completion date but then continued beyond their degree completion date have the choice of seeking an "extension" of OPT. An example is a student who completed all requirements for the degree except thesis prior to May 18, 2007, had a degree completion date of May 18, 2007, and chose to start full-time OPT on May 1, 2007, with an ending date of April 30, 2008. This student did all but the first 18 days of his initial 12-month OPT "post-completion." The student's degree completion date is correctly listed in SEVIS, but the student's SEVIS record does not offer the "extension" choice. | 1 |
| The SEVIS 5.8 release requires J-1 employment information to be updated. However, the release does not include an option to update SEVIS with information about on-campus employment that is no covered by scholarship or financial assistance. Adviser contacted SEVIS help desk and SEVP and added received no answer. Adviser would like to know what other ROs and AROs are doing in regards to on-campus employment that is not covered by scholarships, fellowships, and assistantships. | 1 |
| Adviser reports students who are on OPT and being completed in SEVIS (presumably by CLAIMS) once their H-1B is approved. Adviser has seen 5 cases in the last week. These students have a benefit start date of say 4/15/08, but their H-1B actually begins on 10/01/08. Adviser has seen this with two service centers. | 1 |
| Adviser reports that language program leaders in the adviser’s area are informing their students that if they wish to transfer after studying in their program, they must be enrolled in classes within 60 days. Adviser has pointed to the regulation which states that a transfer student may not remain in the country unless they will be in class within 5 months from date of last attendance. The other program leaders agree this is the regulation, but hold to their interpretation. They are refusing to release the active record if the student does not provide evidence that they will be in class within 60 days. | 1 |
| Adviser would like to see status changes to marriage more clearly outlined in SEVIS. Adviser has F-1 student who is marrying soon. For those students who are seeking political asylum adviser would also like to see more info in SEVIS. | 1 |
| Adviser asks question about SEVIS 5.8, which now has screens for entering employment for J exchange visitors. Currently adviser provides letters of employment authorization to all Js for whom they authorize employment. This information cannot be entered by batch. Adviser asks: is it mandatory that they utilize SEVIS to track the employment? | 1 |
| Adviser asks question about SEVIS version 5.8, which now has a drop down menu for entering employment for J-1 students, including on campus employment. The only choices for on campus employment are: Scholarship, Fellowship or Assistantship. Yet, adviser has many student J-1 exchange visitors who engage in hourly wage on campus employment. Adviser asks: how can advisers indicate that? | 1 |
| J Exchange Visitor | Submissions |
|
Adviser submitted questions regarding updates to J-1 SEVIS functions for SEVIS 5.8 release coming April 18, 2008: 1. Will there be date minimums using the “out of the country function?” Will it be important to distinguish between a scholar attending a conference for one week compared to someone leaving for four months? 2. Will a J-1 scholar be able to obtain a visa (in the case of a renewal) without information about the dates of their absence and their physical location appearing in the SEVIS record? E.g: someone leaves without our knowledge/our ability to update SEVIS? 3. Will the CBP port of entry official scrutinize those dates carefully, in the case of discrepancies? For example if the scholar forgets to notify us of a slight change in travel plans. 4. Who will be able to see the out of country dates/address: consulates and CBP? What about SSA? |
1 |
| Adviser reports difficulty with redesignation process. Application for program re-designation was submitted in November 2007 and was officially received on December 3, 2007, as per the notification. Adviser received an e-mail instructing institution to go to pay.gov and pay the recertification fee, and then send the evidence of the paid fee to the EVP. Adviser entered the Pay.gov system periodically during the ensuing weeks in order to make the payment on line. The only form that has been available on Pay.gov for the EVP is the form that is specifically to be used for new program designation, stating right on the form (in no uncertain terms) that it is not to be used for payment of the re-designation fee. As the time grew nearer for the end of current program designation, RO began to contact the EVP Office as well as colleagues at other colleges and universities to see if anyone could tell how to pay the fee so that application for re-designation would be released for review. Adviser was told that they should have received (at some time last fall) a template which was sent to all J programs which were going to need to re-designate, to complete in order to go through the payment process. Institution had not received such template or other information, so after several calls and voicemails and e-mails, they were sent a template form, which basically asked for the contact info of the RO. Adviser completed and sent it back promptly, and hoped to hear back what the next step(s) in the process might be. Adviser did not hear back with further instructions, even after the RO called and left voicemails and sent e-mails. There were only a couple of days left before the “expiration date” of our program. In order to comply with the requirement from the Academic and Government Programs Division to pay the fee before application for re-designation would be considered, and in the absence of specific instruction on how to do so following proper procedure, RO felt that she had no choice but to go to the Pay.gov web site and submit payment for the $1,748 online on the last day before the “expiration date of program,” using the form that is apparently only supposed to be used for initial program designation. The RO then faxed a copy of the payment receipt to the EVP. It is hoped that the application for re-designation might now be released for consideration, and that institution might be notified soon of program continuation. Institution has been quite concerned about communicating with current Exchange Visitors and would be most relieved to be able to move forward with the individuals that they hope might begin programs in the fall of 2008. | 1 |
| F Student Issues | Submissions |
| Adviser reports problems with issuance of intern license to student. Institution began to offer a Pharmacy program in Fall 2007. On April 9th, the state Board of Pharmacy notified the Pharmacy Department that F-1 visa holders are not eligible to get a state pharmacy intern license unless they can show an EAD. Internships (unpaid) are a requirement of the 2nd and 3rd years of the institutions Pharmacy curriculum. Institution contacted the state Board of Pharmacy about this issue. They stated that an official at the Department of Homeland Security had told them that they could not issue an intern license to an F-1 international student unless they have an EAD because the intern license could be used in both paid or unpaid positions. Advisers do not see how issuing an international student a professional license to perform a certain regulated set of job functions has any relationship to the regulations regarding international student eligibility for paid employment. Advisers see these two sets of regulations (state/pharmacy internship & federal/international student employment eligibility) as being completely separate. From what advisers understand, international pharmacy students are being denied state pharmacy intern licenses based on the assumption that the license would somehow supersede federal employment eligibility laws.
|
|
| Adviser reports a concern about the 3 credit restriction for online courses. A few of the institution’s degrees have a large online component to them and as a result, adviser is not able to allow international students to enroll in these courses. One of them is the Nursing program that has approximately 24 credits of online courses required their senior year. Adviser requests NAFSA to express this concern to SEVP. As schools begin to increase the number of degrees offered online, this will become a bigger concern. Currently institution is looking into a work- around for international students whereby online courses would require physical attendance once a week to comply with the government regulations. | 1 |
| Adviser reports problem with change of level I-20s for F-1 students. Most students are accepted to academic programs near the end of their ESL studies and before the start of the next academic semester; often this is before summer break. When adviser makes the new I-20s, the students’ status is changed back to “initial attendance” and there is a gap between the old program end date and the new program start dates which are usually in August or January. This is causing problems for students who want to travel and/or need new visa stamps because they have initial entry I-20s with program dates that don’t start within 30 days of their planned summer entry. It is problematic for students whose previous I-20s expire in May along with their drivers’ licenses and can’t get new ones until the new program start date is valid. It’s also a problem for students who want to work on campus over summer but don’t have active, "valid" I-20s for I-9 completion for the summer vacation time because the new program doesn’t “start” until August. Is this something that could be considered in future SEVIS editions? | 1 |
| Social Security | Submissions |
|
Adviser reports that F-1 student is unable to obtain a social security number due to an input mistake made by the POE officer into the TECS system. The officer mistakenly input the students DOB incorrectly. Social Security office is saying that their system will not issue a Social Security card until the DOB is corrected by the TECS system. |
|
| Adviser reports delays in obtaining social security card. J-1 Exchange Visitor arrived in the country and applied for a Social Security Number on January 8th, 2008. When exchange visitor hadn't received the card by March, she inquired in person on March 5th bearing her visa documents. SSN representatives photocopied exchange visitor’s visa documents again although they indicated her first application was still valid and pending. Representatives told her to wait two weeks for the card but it has been over one month since she last inquired on the processing. | 1 |
| H-1B Issues |
Submissions |
|
Adviser reports that NAFSA recommended advisers include a duplicate copy of an H-1B petition when submitting a COS or EOS. When sending the duplicate, should advisers send a copy of the entire petition, which would include all supporting documentation or just the I-129? |
|
| Adviser reports inability to submit an LCA via the DOL ETA Foreign Labor Certification site for multiple days. After entering all of the wage and city information, a page appears with a list of code, starting with "The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error. Please contact the website administrator. The following information is meant for the website developer for debugging purposes..." Adviser sent a message to their Helpdesk (LCAHelp@dol.gov) and received the answer that they are "aware of the problem and working on it." | 1 |
Service Center Issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Region I |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports that a current J scholar has applied for change of status to F1 international student status but listed the wrong address on her change of status application. Adviser would like to know how the scholar can correct the address and inform the Service Center of the correct address. |
| Region II | Submissions |
| Adviser reports no response from service center. A student currently on F-2 status applied on Dec 28th 2007 for a Change of Status to F-1. Adviser sent all the required documents and received the acknowledgement on January 9th, 2008. Then student received a request for evidence on February 18th, for a document that had been included in the first package (proof of payment of the SEVIS Fee). Adviser and student replied the same day and sent the document again and did not receive a reply. Adviser e-mailed the service center on March 21st and they replied on March 24th that they had never received the missing document. Adviser scanned it and sent it again on March 24th and since then has not heard back. The student has a position on campus and would like to start her studies in May. | |
| Adviser reports that seven months have passed since a F-1 student applied for standard post-completion OPT and service center is still in security check phase. Student needs approval of OPT for his post-doctoral training. USCIS SC explained the application is being processed for a security check clearance and there is nothing they can do until the checking unit completes their review. The checking unit would not give the adjudicator a time frame. Student applied to USCIS to expedite request on the basis "to further the cultural and social interests of the United States". The student is an integral part of an internationally recognized team that is developing new therapies for bone cancer pain and for the severe fracture pain that many wounded soldiers have as a result of the polytrauma induced by improvised exploding devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. Request was denied by USCIS with explanation: "After careful review and consideration, it has been determined that the request does not meet the expedite guidelines established by the USCIS. As such, the case will be adjudicated in the date receipt order. There is no appeal or reconsideration of this decision.” Student looked at USCIS website and saw they are backlogged 3 years for the security checks. SC responded to inquiry about the possibility of an interim ID with the response "Duty Officer will complete adjudication as soon as security checks are done. Field offices don't issue interim cards anymore". | 1 |
| Region III |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports that student was denied CPT due to the 12 month aggregate part time error. | |
| Adviser reports that H-1B clinical extension that was filed timely on behalf of a cardiologist was denied for the following reasons: "The petitioner in their initial submission provided evidence that the beneficiary would be employed as an Assistant Professor whose duties would include teaching, research and clinical care of patients. The beneficiary has been certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates and has passed component 1&2 of the Federal Licensing Examination (FLEX). On February 2, 2008 the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requested the petitioner to submit a clear description of the duties to be performed by the beneficiary as it appeared that patient cares was involved. The petitioner was also requested to provide evidence that the beneficiary has passed all 3 steps of the Federal Licensing Examination (FLEX). On February 19, 2008 the USCIS received the petitioners response in which they provided the same copy of the FLEX Examination for the beneficiary that was submitted with the initial filing. The petitioner has failed to provide evidence that the beneficiary has passed all 3 steps of the Federal Licensing Examination (FLEX) as required by regulations. In response to USCIS's request for a clear description of the duties to be performed by the beneficiary the petition failed to address this issue. The evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary qualifies for classification within the meaning of section 101(2)(15)(H)(i) as established above. Therefore, your petition is denied." | 1 |
| Adviser reports a prospective student has filed a change of status in March 2008 from F-2 to F-1 for a summer (June 30) admit with the local service center. Adviser looked at the dates for current processing and it is now adjudicating August 2007 change of status applications. Another service center is processing December 2007 applications. Adviser wonders why there is such a discrepancy in adjudications of change of status? If the State Department is putting priority on student and exchange visas, is there a way to advocate for changes of status to F/M/J be also given the same level of service? If the change of status will not be adjudicated by the beginning of the summer II term, the student will lose the assistantship which is his sole source of funding of his educational program. An adjudication after June 30 will mean that the student will be faced with another change of status to F-2 since he will not be able to pay for his education with the loss of the assistantship. | 1 |
| Region IV |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports that H-1B has not received approval notice. In April 2007 had received an approval for H-1B renewal for a physician. When petition was submitted, it included the renewal request for H-1B’s husband's H4 status. The family received the receipt notice for the husband's I-539, but has never received the approval notice. They did not move. According to the system, the petition was approved in April, 2007. | |
| Adviser reports H4 dependent received I-797 receipt notice at the address listed, but never received the I-797 approval notice. According to the online case status, the petition was approved. | 1 |
| Adviser reports that on the new I-765 under number 17 when completing the form online the system is not allowing advisers to write a complete Degree name and advisers are unable to complete the Employer's name as listed in E-verify. There is too little space even for a relatively short employer name. | 1 |
| Region VII |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports that student submitted I-765 application on 03/17/2008 and the I-797 Notice of Action dated 03/18/2008 had the student's family name misspelled by 1 letter. School received the Notice of Action on 03/25/2008 and notified student of receipt. The student requested action for misspelled name, and adviser sent a NAFSA Inquiry fax to USCIS Service Center on 03/27/2008 but never received a response. Student asked about response twice within 2 weeks time, but adviser encouraged patience and said that they would contact service center again after 3 weeks time. On 04/16/2008 adviser and student received the student's EAD and the family name was still misspelled. Adviser contacted USCIS and the representative said that the student should re-submit I-765 application with the incorrect card and said that the student might not have to re-pay the fee (if the Service Center determined that the error was theirs). In the meantime, adviser has re-submitted original fax with a secondary cover letter and a copy of the incorrect EAD & receipt and is waiting for a response. If adviser does not hear from USCIS within 24 hours, adviser will send another fax. | |
| Adviser reports that three service centers had adopted the policy of refusing to answer non-student (e.g. H-1B) inquiries on the Schools inquiry e-mail address and that they should be called in to the National Customer Service line. From my past experience with the NCSC, this means advisers no longer have any means at all to resolve non-student problems or correct errors. | 1 |
| Region VIII |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports difficulty filing COS at service center. Student applied for F-1 status in June 2007. First notice from service center was in regard to student’s failure to sign I-20. Student signed it and sent it in, paid the SEVIS fee and sent a copy of the receipt. On September 26, 2007 student received a notice that her case met the criteria for special handling. On October 19, 2007 student received a notice that her case did not meet the criteria for special handling and that they were waiting for information which had already been sent a month earlier. In November 2007, adviser called the service center on student’s behalf. Student was also in the office and spoke to the officer, who said that the case was delayed because student’s initial I-20 had been automatically canceled in SEVIS. Adviser caught that in October and had put in a data fix back to initial status. Officer saw that it was INITIAL status and said that the case had been approved and to be patient, student would be receiving approval in a couple of weeks. In December 2007, student and adviser called again and were told to wait longer. In March 17, 2008 student received a notice from service center that her COS had been denied based on abandonment. Is there anything the adviser can do other than file a motion? |
| Region XI |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports H-1B petition filed for extension in November (received by USCIS 11/11/2007) with no response/approval. |
| Region XII |
Submissions |
| Student's Form I-765 application for post-completion OPT was received by service center on 10/03/07, but has not yet been adjudicated. After filing I-765 in Oct. '07, the student received 3 separate requests for new passport photos (even though student had submitted the 2 required passport photos as part of his original application packet). The student sent in new photos each time he was asked to do so, and the last two times he sent them in by USPS Express Mail and they were signed for on 01/07/08 and 02/08/08. The student also contacted the NSCS on 01/04/08 to inquire about the status of his case and to request expedited processing (since he had been waiting nearly 90 days at that point for his application to be adjudicated) and he received a letter dated 01/07/08 stating that the case was in process and currently waiting for the complete security checks. Adviser e-mailed the service center on 02/26/08 and received a reply regarding the student's photos received on 02/27/08, the I-765 was currently with the SC scanning department so that the photos could be added to the biographical record for card production and that once the process was complete the file would be forwarded to the adjudicating officer and that the student should expect to receive a final decision within 21-30 days. When, as of 03/26/08, the student had not yet received a decision about his case, adviser e-mailed service center again, but no reply received. |
