Regulatory Information
IssueNet Archive - July 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: 98
Get Liaison Help
| Type of Case | Submissions |
| I-765 | 26 |
| I-539 | 14 |
| I-129 | 5 |
| SEVIS | 1 |
| I-140 | 2 |
| I-102 | 2 |
| Total this Month | 50 |
Report an Issue
| Type of Case | Submissions |
| Education Abroad |
6 |
| REAL ID/Drivers Licenses |
1 |
| Entry, Exit and Travel |
2 |
| SEVIS Issues | 10 |
| US Visas and Consular Affairs |
10 |
| DHS Adjudicated Benefits and Service Center Issues |
15 |
| DOL Issues | 2 |
| H-1B |
2 |
| Total this Month | 48 |
| Education Abroad |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports that students going to Italy have arrival dates that are earlier then the valid date of their visa (by a day or two). Adviser has been trying to contact the consulate where the visas were issued to see if the students will have a problem entering before their valid visa date and has not received a response. Adviser is concerned that the students will arrive early and will have their visa revoked and then will not be able to study in Italy for the semester. Institution also has a faculty member that is accompanying the students that was issued a D visa (opposed to a C+D visa and he is concerned that he will not be able to travel outside of Italy (in other Schengen and non-Schengen countries) for period of 5 days or longer. Adviser has also not received a response from the consulate regarding this question. Adviser is concerned that the professor will leave the country for a week and then be denied entry back into Italy and therefore would be unable to finish the semester with the students. | |
| Student submitted CampusFrance application in June, but learned a few weeks ago through her CampusFrance mailbox that her application was incomplete. The application had already been submitted and student could not make changes to it. Student tried messaging them 3 times through her CampusFrance account to find out what she needed to do. Adviser emailed CampusFrance on her behalf also and neither have gotten a response. Student’s appointment was in 4 days and student still did not have approval from CampusFrance. |
1 |
| A student submitted her CampusFrance application five weeks ago, submitted all of the required documents, and she has not heard back from them. When she called the phone number she received a message instructing her to send an email. She has sent four emails and has not received a response. She is concerned because she is scheduled to start her program in France a month from now and she needs lead time to schedule her appointment with the consulate. Adviser will check with the student to see if she is emailing them though her C.F. account or through the email address on their website. Adviser will advise her to email them through her C.F. account if she is not presently doing this. | 1 |
| Adviser reports that the Italian consulate in Chicago called a student after submission of her visa application to inform the student they were no longer accepting Financial Aid Award letters as proof of financial means to attend an overseas program. As this student pays for her schooling and will be paying for her overseas program through financial aid she is stuck. | 1 |
| Adviser reports a student’s problems with CampusFrance. The student cannot register with the CampusFrance, as she is not able to submit her online application, because for some reason CampusFrance wants her to schedule an interview. She is going on the university program and not enrolling in a French institution directly, but she is participating in a semester program. She went over her entire application with another student who is also going to Paris and has successfully completed her application and obtained a visa. The student with the problem did find three discrepancies between her application and the successful applicant’s: 1) The first is that on the CampusFrance form under My File, under My Activities, the student in question has Bulletin Bac + 1; the other successful student has Bulletin Bac+ 2) The second difference is that under Linguistic Skills on the Campus France form, the student with the problem mistakenly listed her stays in France as 30/8/08 to 20/12/08.The other student had not listed any stays in France. 3) The most important difference is the step to schedule an interview is accessible for the student with the problem, while the other student was exempt from scheduling an interview. CampusFrance told adviser that they do not take phone calls and they do not respond to emails. Adviser’s office has emailed them repeatedly nonetheless and has received no reply. |
1 |
| Adviser reports that the Spanish Consulate recently moved from a system where they would take walk-ins to one where they require appointments. The problem is that there are no appointments available early enough for students to make it to their programs in Spain. Visa processing for Spain takes 7 weeks minimum and there are no appointments until the very end of August. This is a huge issue, of course. Adviser’s program begins on September 1, 2008, but the students have been told that they should consider arriving 1-2 days prior to the start date. Thus, students are arriving during the last days of August or September 1 at the latest. Some have had appointments already and are fine, but a few have not, as they believed that they could walk-in to the Consulate, as in all previous semesters, and thus, that they were doing fine in terms of time and planning. | 1 |
| REAL ID/Drivers Licenses |
Submissions |
| Student who's on OPT was granted an OPT extension for H-1B cap gap relief. Student was denied a new driver's license because his EAD is "expired". DMV representatives will not accept the extension language on the I-20 form as reason for renewing the driver's license |
| US Visas | Submissions |
| Can F-1 students generally get visas renewed while on OPT? Adviser has many students who wish to travel home while they are on OPT. They have jobs in the United States and valid EAD cards, but their visas have expired. |
|
| Consul did not return DS-2019 to student. Student realized it when checked baggage in the airport. | |
| A professor received the email below regarding a graduate student who was admitted and is applying for a visa. It is from the Office of Conventional Arms Threat Reduction. The officer is questioning whether this person’s access to research could potentially be considered a deemed export, or so it would seem. The research will be published. “Dear Professor: As mandated by the U.S. Congress, our office reviews visa applications for possible technology-export issues, including "deemed exports" of controlled information. Mr. Gang Lu has applied for a student visa to pursue an advanced degree at Washington State University, and we understand that you are to be his advising professor. In order to continue processing his application, we need additional information. • Could you describe the research this applicant intends to pursue? Will the results be published? • What practical applications might be developed? • Will the applicant have access to any information or technology that is sensitive or not publicly available? • Does your lab or department have contracts with the U.S. government? If so, please describe and also provide the name of the person(s) responsible for overseeing compliance with U.S. government contractual security requirements in your department. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Your prompt response will speed adjudication of this visa application.” |
|
| New visitor who arrived on July 8, 2008. She was held up at the POE since she did not have her original DS-2019. The consulate kept all of her documents and did not return them to her. She was issued for I-515A with the duration of status until 8/2/2008. Adviser mailed an original DS2019 with signature - the I94 and the I-515 to DHS. Her program was validated. As of today nothing has been received for her and her program ends 9/18/2008. Consulates should be more diligent in making sure the correct documents are returned to the student/scholar. |
|
| Adviser reports that a student from Germany has had trouble at the port of entry because his visa stamp has the incorrect SEVIS ID number. Student gets sent to secondary interview every time for the same issue. He has gone to the Consulate to have them correct it but they will not since the visa is still valid. | 1 |
| H-1B scholar (postdoc in Chemical Engineering) applied for visa at U.S. Consulate on 06/19/2008. As of 7/29/2008 the security check is still pending. This has delayed the scholar's research as he has been unable to return to institution in a timely manner. | 1 |
| Student had a visa interview on June 30, 2008. The student's program begin date is July 28, 2008. If the background check takes too long, he will be forced to defer his admission to next year and might lose a fully funded scholarship provided by the government of his home country. |
1 |
| A J-1 Research Scholar was told by the consulate that he couldn't enter the US more than 10 days before the start date on the DS-2019 when he told them his intention was to arrive 14 days before the start. The officer told him that a visa wouldn't be issued until the start date DS-2019 had been amended to less than 10 days from their date of arrival. Adviser will not amend the DS-2019 to accommodate an erroneous instruction. |
1 |
| Adviser reports J-1 visa applicants are being told during their J-1 visa application process that they are required to provide form DS-7002 in order for their J-1 visa applications to be approved. J-1 exchange visitor are only required to have form DS-2019 and that form DS-7002 is only required for J-1 intern trainees only. How can this problem be resolved? | 1 |
| Chinese student will have his Ph.D. qualifying exam on July 28, and his airline ticket is for July 22., but a delayed visa will impact his normal study at the university. |
1 |
| Parents of student from Vietnam, sold property in order to fund their daughter's education at the adviser’s English language school, and probably any subsequent university studies. Information from the student applicant is that the interviewer at the consulate in Ho Chi Minh City did not review the submitted financial documents. Based solely on the fact that both parents are teachers, the application for the F-1 student visa was denied. [Edited for length] A promising young attorney has been turned down for a visa four times at the Chengdu Consulate in China. Adviser believes her visa refusals indicate a pattern at that consulate of discrediting the words and actions of the applicant and her sponsors, and instead applying a rigid approach that disregards the facts of a case. Adviser believes these refusals show either a lack of proper training or a serious abuse of the discretion with which the government entrusts consular officers. A Chinese law graduate originally came to the US in fall of 2006 to study International Business at California State University East Bay. She quickly realized that the program she was in would not provide her with the legal training she sought, and thus would not be of much use to her Chinese employer. In December of 2006, she contacted the adviser’s University to transfer into an LLM (Master of Laws) program that would provide her with the training in International Business Transactions, International Trade Regulation and related law courses that would be of use to her legal employer at home in China. The University arranged for her transfer into the LLM programs, and she was admitted to begin the fall semester 2007. During the summer of 2007, her father died, but she came back to the program at Golden Gate, where she completed 8 units of a 24 unit program. At Christmas break, she returned home to be with her mother in China. The consulate in Chengdu, fully knowing these circumstances, refused to authorize her return to finish her LLM program (for which she has already paid ($9000 tuition), citing “intent to immigrate.” Three times in spring 2008 she was refused an F-1 student visa to return to finish the program. In June 2008, her employer arranged to sponsor her for a J-1 visa. Her employer, her other teachers, and I all wrote letters on her behalf. Again, she was turned down; again “intent to immigrate” was given as the reason – in clear and cruel disregard of the facts. While the decision of the consular officer in such matters is not appealable, adviser feels that when an abuse of discretion of such magnitude is repeated 4 times by 4 officers in the same consulate, investigation is warranted. |
1 |
| Entry and Travel | Submissions |
| Student withdrew from school after Fall 2004 and returned to home country. The SEVIS record was marked terminated-early withdrawal. In April 2008 student entered the US for a business trip and was told to contact the school to 'update the record' because the port of entry officer understood that the student had been 'illegal' in the US and that the status still showed that he was a student at the school. This happens frequently and the importance of ongoing SEVIS training for POE officials needs to be emphasized. |
|
| An H-1B employee left the US and when he returned the I-94 was issued for the expiration of his passport. Adviser mailed in an I-129 and fee requesting the change to the I-94 because employee has since renewed his passport. Now the faculty member wants to visit Canada and does not have the corrected I-94 yet. Would he need the corrected I-94 to leave the US? | 1 |
| Department of Labor Issues |
Submissions |
|
Adviser reports that the new prevailing wage came up 7/1/2008, and they are much higher. Last year, the wage for level 1 under Physics was $39,499, but it has been raised to $62,296. This is almost a 40% raise. The wage for the level 1 under the "Chemist" has also risen from $48,506 to $68,910. This is obvious that the data has been determined based on the wrong information and adviser’s institution simply won't be able to hire any postdocs. It would also be a problem for people who already have H-1B but are changing the employer or need the extension. |
|
| Adviser reports that the new prevailing wages have increased dramatically. Many Level 1 wages are well above the salary range for postdocs at adviser’s institution. This affects their ability to sponsor H-1Bs. Sometimes there are alternatives like the J-1 or TN but often not (e.g. H-1B extensions and portability cases; scholars subject to the 12- or 24-mo. bar). The Level 1 wage for Environmental Engineers went from $37,107 to $67,621; for Chemists it went from $48,506 to $68,910; and for Physicists it went from $39,499 to $62,296. Also, in many cases the wages for different subfields within the same discipline are dramatically different. For example, the Level 1 wage for Biochemists is $34,237 but for Chemists it is $68,910. For Computer Software Engineers, Applications, R&D it is $34,611 and for Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software, R&D it is $35,256, but for Computer and Information Scientists, Research it is $70,699. For Materials Engineers it is $44,470 but for Materials Scientists it is $48,776. Much of the research at adviser’s institution is interdisciplinary, but when they list more than one field under "degree requirements," the classification given is usually the one with the highest wage. Finally, when no specific OES classification exists, they are given a general classification which is usually quite high. For the Level 1 wage for Biological Scientists, All Other is $47,861 and for Engineers, All Other it is $66,269. | 1 |
| SEVIS issues | Submissions |
| The CLAIMS interface is not updating the status of OPT requests in SEVIS. Nearly every OPT request that has been approved by USCIS over the last three months has remained in "requested" status in SEVIS. Advisers are notified of approved OPT requests only when students submit copies of the Employment Authorization Document. This problem is a concern because the requests are not being updated for students who have completed their program. We do not want the SEVIS record to auto-complete for students who have submitted an OPT application, which is either in process or has been approved. | |
| Adviser requests verification related to new OPT regulations. If a student is graduating in August (which is our Summer II Session) and has completed all of their course work in Summer I Session, are they required to be enrolled in their graduating semester? |
1 |
| Adviser reports that student will complete her 12 months of OPT: Post-Completion of Studies at the end of August, but will not be finished with her thesis at that time and will be enrolling for thesis continuance for the Fall 2008 semester. Student knows that she is not eligible for any additional OPT. Is she eligible for CPT? |
1 |
| In regards to the 17-month extension applications, they are to be received by the Service Center prior to the standard OPT expiration date. The new rules state that the extension approval start date will be the day following the OPT expiration date. If students only have a receipt notice as proof of application pending, are they eligible to work as of the day after their original OPT expiration date? NAFSA note: See the SEVP Policy Guidance: 8.4.2. Can the student work with an expired employment authorization document while a STEM extension is pending? Yes. 8 CFR 214.2(f)(11)(i)(C) and 8 CFR 247a.12(c)(6)(iv) automatically extends the student’s work authorization for up to 180 days while the student’s STEM extension application is pending. |
1 |
| Adviser reports receiving copies of EAD cards for several students whose I-765 applications were processed by the SC that still have their OPT in "requested" status in SEVIS. Every single one has had their OPT approved (as evidenced by the EAD card) and the SEVIS record shows their OPT still in a "requested" status. I have requested corrections to these records. This is troublesome because the new version of SEVIS (5.8) is suppose to be automatically cancelling any student's OPT request record that has been in "requested" status for more than 180 days. Unless the student submits a copy of their EAD to adviser’s office (not all of the students do it), they have no way of knowing if this error is on their record. This also means that when student applications are received at the service center, it is not being even updated to "pending" status. | 1 |
| Student's OPT end date was July 15; her employer is not a registered E-verify user; she and the employer applied for H1B status in April 2008 with a start date of May 2008 and have since been contacted by USCIS to provide additional documentation; H1B application is still pending. The employer is a community college so the cap-gap extension doesn't apply because according to NAFSA Regulatory Information, "For a student who is the beneficiary of an H-1B petition filed by a cap exempt (higher education, etc.) employer, USCIS will likely NOT recognize that s/he is eligible for the extension of status and work authorization under the cap gap provision of this rule. The rationale is that a cap exempt employer can choose a start date that matches the end of authorized F-1 status or work authorization. USCIS and SEVP are consulting with counsel." So - she can't apply for the 17-month STEM extension (Info Tech major employed in IT dept) because her employer doesn't participate in E-verify BUT could she if they were, on the expiration date of her OPT, or would she have had to apply July 14 AND would it still have been advisable as she would be applying after her H1B application was already submitted and pending/being reviewed? Is there an OPT extension provision/way for students whose H1B petitions are filed by cap-exempt employers that would allow them to continue working on OPT while awaiting their H1B decision? |
1 |
| Adviser writes to express concern about the failure of communication between CLAIMS and SEVIS that has resulted in students with OPT requests that have already been approved or moved to pending status by the USCIS having records that do not reflect the change. As a result of this failure of communication, students are in jeopardy of losing OPT due to no fault of their own. To prevent this loss, DSOs have to communicate with students to gather receipt numbers, EAD copies, check case status online, and then make correction requests through SEVIS. After a record is corrected, the DSO must check the correction in SEVIS and again communicate with the student about the status of their SEVIS record. For records that appeared in this alert during the month of June 2008, adviser had to undertake this process for 18 records. A successful and smooth correction process took an aggregate of 1 hour per student/record. This undue and repeated burden on adviser’s time was caused entirely by failure of communication between USCIS/CLAIMS and SEVIS. There were 34 people from adviser’s school who had OPT applications pass through the service centers during this period. With 18 records having to be corrected, more than 50% of relevant OPT records were not properly updated by communication between CLAIMS and SEVIS. This points to a serious problem in how CLAIMS and SEVIS are communicating or in how the USCIS Service Center staff are updating CLAIMS. Adviser’s school has only 103 students currently on OPT. Adviser cannot even begin to imagine how schools with much larger student populations or SEVIS staff who must make corrections to individual records are coping. This is an unnecessary and unwieldy activity and it has been made significantly more burdensome by the frequent lack of functioning of SEVIS over the past 3 weeks. SEVIS repeatedly freezes in updating mode as it struggles to move between panels of a student record or SEVIS area. The amount of staff time lost to waiting and repeatedly attempting to interface with SEVIS has been considerable and enormously frustrating. It is necessary to communicate with the appropriate responsible parties about need to improve the communication between CLAIMS and SEVIS with respect to student requests and/or improve service center staff training. Schools do not have the DSO staff time to so intensively monitor and correct student records that are incorrect due to database communication or service center staff failures. | 1 |
| In reference to the July 15, 2008 Telephone Conference (NAFSA RegBuds); question number 4: Can SEVP provide clarification on section 6.5 of the OPT Policy Guidance regarding students that apply for post-completion OPT prior to program end date and subsequently fail to complete program requirements by that date? -In the situation where a student has completed all required coursework with the excluding thesis or equivalent, they are eligible to apply for Post-Completion. They can work full-time, they are eligible for STEM extension (if applicable) and cap-gap extension; but they are unable to receive an extension of the program. What is the consequence in this situation? Are they out of status? Is there OPT void? Please provide further guidance with what we as DSOs should state as consequences of being approved for Post-Completion but not finishing the program as of the date listed on the I-20. |
1 |
| During the transition to the interim final rule - adviser had a student apply for OPT under the prior rule which allowed a student to apply for post completion OPT before the program end date and end after the program end date. In this case the student is on approved practical training from 5/18/2008 - 5/17/2009. His program end date is 12/31/2008. Is he really on post completion OPT and therefore eligible for the cap-gap extension next year? Should his program end date be shortened to a date prior to the start of this OPT period to have the benefits of post-completion OPT? If he is currently coded as 'pre-completion' OPT - can we shorten the approved time period to end before his program completion and thus submit a post-completion OPT application for the remaining time period? | 1 |
| Now that SEVP has instituted the Requested status for OPT applications, we are finding that there are no updates being regularly committed for students who have pending or approved applications. As we were concerned that their records would be canceled regardless, we have been submitting correction requests, a responsibility we should not have to pursue. It is USCIS' error, again and again. Adviser recently submitted correction requests of this type for 8 records. They were denied as USCIS had granted dates for OPT different from what was had recommended. So, as adviser didn't have the proper dates, the correction requests were denied. | 1 |
| H-1B | Submissions |
|
Adviser reports that 2 premium processing H-1 applications were returned for more evidence. One application was for a renewal of the H-1 visa and one was a new application. Both beneficiaries are professors. In both cases the RFE asked for us to submit state Teaching Certification. The wording in part reads:" Evidence may include either a permanent teaching credential or a permit issued by the Commission. If a credential is not available, the petitioner may submit a temporary county certificate...... that satisfies the licensure requirement along with evidence from the State granting such authorization." Both professors had PhDs from prestigious universities and adviser submitted evidence of both, even though the application for the former was a renewal, and technically, no evidence would be required. Has anyone else seen this before? |
|
| Adviser reports that the I-129 H-1B approval notice that was received is a courtesy copy which does not include a new I-94 card for the beneficiary for whom (the petitioner) had requested a change of status. In addition, the courtesy copy of the approval notice states that the original approval notice was sent to a person whose name is unknown to the petitioner. Finally, although the requested employment start date of August 1, 2008 was mentioned on the I-129, LCA, and offer letter, the courtesy approval notice begins August 11, 2008 (typographical error). The consequence for the beneficiary (faculty) is that his official status document has been compromised and he will not be able to begin work on time unless this issue is resolved within the next 8 business days. | 1 |
Service Center Issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Region I |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports E2 applied for COS to F-1and initially was denied in Winter. The case was reopened, but unfortunately institution does not have any copy of student's COS application, nor the denial NOA and recent RFE. Adviser received an instruction from a USCIS adjudicator to change SEVIS record status from "Termination" (by CLAIMS) and a SEVIS HelpDesk officer said this is normal procedure. The last time the adviser contacted the SEVIS HelpDesk, she was told that an adviser cannot change 'Termination” status resulted from CLAIMS. Was there a new guideline by USCIS/SEVP, or could this possibly be training issue? | |
| On 3/24/08, the student submitted COS to the USCIS. To date student has not received a response from USCIS. SEVIS shows "No Pending Change of Status Request". | 1 |
| Region II | Submissions |
| H-1B premium processing petition mailed to SC on 1/20/06. I-797C receipt notice acknowledged receipt of petition on 1/25/06. Today, 07/31/2008, CIS Case status website shows this petition still pending. In the meantime, numerous requests have been forwarded to the SC requesting information on when processing would be completed. On 10/16/2006, a request was made for a refund of the $1,000 Premium Processing Fee. That check (dated 1/25/08) was finally received on or about 1/28/08. Thirty months after submitting the petition, numerous e-mails to and from the SC, requesting assistance from 2 U.S. Senators, one U.S. Congressional Representative and a State University Governmental Relations Officer, the case is still pending. Latest communication from the SC was on April 13, 2008, stated that "The Service Center will adjudicate this case within 15 calendar days of the "received date" set forth above (1/26/2006). We have not received a notice of action, nor any further communication from the SC. |
| Region V |
Submissions |
| Institution submitted 4 cases via premium processing for veterinarian instructors. They requested the full 3 years for each case. 2 cases came back for the full 3 years, 1 came back for 1 year and one came back with an end date of 12/31/2008. Adviser thought this was an error, so advisre emailed premium processing unit. Email response: End date stands since license expires on 12/31/2008. This position requires a limited academic license for vets. The license is issued until end of year and renewal process happens every year. Main problem: how to explain to hiring dept the difference in adjudicate. It does not make sense. After the adviser received the email a colleague suggested she call premium processing unit to find out what she could provide as evidence. The USCIS representative suggested she send another email listing all the cases and adviser has not had a response back as of yet. Overall issue: Will cases with license requirements only be adjudicated until date of license? For example with these limited academic licenses for vets: MDCH site-ORIGINAL LICENSES ARE VALID FOR ONE YEAR OR LESS; SUBSEQUENT RENEWALS ARE FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD. Renewal process-- the app can be submitted up to 45 days before a current one expires-- but they prefer you wait for the renewal form as it is coded to "speed up the process". So the problem will be getting the license renewal proof in time for H extension. | |
| Adviser called the National Service line because when checking the online processing timeframes, pending I-129 applications are past the date they are looking at. When adviser called and spoke to someone, he stated that they have 30 days to look at the problem, and it would be best if adviser waited 30 days and then called back. In the past advisers could email the Service Center, give the receipt numbers and get an email back stating that they would be looking at them soon. Now there is no recourse but to wait. When adviser spoke to the National Service Line and asked him how it is done, does he email directly to the service center, he stated that yes and they have 30 days to respond. It used to take them only a few days to respond and advisers got approvals in about 1 week. | 1 |
| Region VI |
Submissions |
| When the issuing of temporary EAD for applications over 90 days pending was ended at the local service centers, advisers were told they would be issued by the regional service center. Since that time, advisers have not had any application over 90 days, but last week, one adviser had two cases that were within a week of 90 days. Upon emailing the service center, expedite requests were sent to the officer, but adviser was also told that temporary EAD's are no longer to be issued. But the law still says that if an I-765 application is pending more than 90 days, a temporary EAD for up to 8 months must be issued. So does the law need to be changed or does the service center need to be corrected? | |
| An I-539 Application to Change/Extend Nonimmigrant Status was submitted to the Service Center in March, along with an I-129 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. Both were applications to extend current H-4/H-1B status; the I-129 included the H-1B employee, while the I-539 included the wife and daughter of the H-1B. All three approval notices arrived in March. However, although the H-1B's approval notice noted the correct end date of 08/31/2010 (the end date on the petition) and the daughter's H-4 approval notice noted the correct end date of 12/20/2008 (the date that the daughter turns 21 and H-4 eligibility ends), the mother's H-4 approval notice also noted the end date of 12/20/2008. Since the mother's H-4 eligibility does not end when the daughter turns 21, the correct end date for the mother's H-4 approval notice should have been 08/31/2010. NAFSA note: When extending H-4 dependents using form I-539, all of the family members included in the application are considered “the applicants” as a body. Therefore, none of the family members on an I-539 application can be extended for longer than the shortest allowed legal validity for any one applicant. In the situation where a child is aging-out, his/her age-out date sets the end validity for everyone on the I-539. However, the spouse may file another I-539 extension at the appropriate time. |
1 |
| A relatively new adviser I submitted first OPT requests for F students this spring and neglected to sign the first page of the I-20 for all of the students, and they are getting RFEs. Adviser received an RFE for a student yesterday, signed the I-20, and mailed it back to USCIS, but after mailing it noticed that she did not include the front page of the RFE document with the I-20. Adviser has been trying to contact USCIS to talk to them about what to do to correct this so that the students' OPT requests do not get denied and have been unable to contact them. Since this has happened with 4 or 5 students, adviser is concerned that they will be punished for adviser’s oversight. Adviser has kept copies of all of the documents sent to USCIS and they show that she neglected to sign the correct page on the I-20. None of their OPTs have been approved and adviser has only received RFEs for two students so far, but they both applied in early March and still have not been approved. | 1 |
| Region VIII |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports that on 2 separate occasions, an F-1 student, calling to find out why her EAD for F-1 OPT has been pending for more than 90 days, was told by an agent that she needs fingerprints. 7/17/08: "...when I called to the customer center, they told me that I should have my fingerprints appointment within 60 days after submitting the application." 7/29/08: "I called USCIS today. And another representative once again told me that I should have my fingerprint done, while I informed them that the school said that I don’t need it. And they suggest me to talk to the school. Yet, they insisted that it is a new regulation made by January 2008." |
| Region X |
Submissions |
| Student applied for OPT at the end of June. His application was returned, along with a rejection Notice from the USCIS stating that "the application or petition cannot be accepted because the proper fee of $340 U.S. is not attached". The student did send a check and the USCIS cashed the check on July 7th. Adviser emailed the Service Center, explaining the situation, but received a response saying that adviser/student should follow the instructions from the Notice. Adviser replied back explaining one more time what happened and asking if they are suggesting that he needs to pay the fee twice. Adviser is still waiting for their response. While waiting for further instructions from the SC, the student's application is waiting in adviser’s office. Adviser is not sure what to do at this time. Adviser is afraid that, if they resend the application without a fee, they will return it again. If the student sends a new check, they will charge him twice. The student requested OPT to start on 9/8 but adviser is afraid that his application will not be processed on time. | |
| What actions should F-1 students or SEVIS-authorized schools take to seek resolution to cases pending beyond the allotted processing time? Case Example: I-765 application for F-1 OPT timely filed. RFE is issued (requesting documents that had already been submitted), but not until 91 days after the application was received. After prompt response from student, the application remains without a decision for another 50 days (perhaps even longer). This is nearly 5 months processing time for an OPT application, and still counting. Such delays cause extreme hardship and students will lose eligible OPT days as a result! What recourse is available? NAFSA note: To request case assistance from your RegBud, please use IssueNet’s Get Liaison Help. This case has been forwarded to the Region’s RegBud for follow-up. |
1 |
| Region XI |
Submissions |
| A student submitted her post completion OPT application without the final I-20 recommending the OPT. Once her first receipt came back with the receipt number adviser contacted the SC and received instructions to send the I-20 to a specific individual who would then place it in the students file. Adviser sent it and she acknowledged the receipt of it however, she continues to insist that they need an I-20 with original signatures, not a copy. Adviser believes that a copy is what should be sent for this application. Meanwhile the student has become very anxious about her application since she has a job pending, is afraid that she will lose the job (and the H sponsorship that has already been filed) and has requested an expedite. It has not been 90 days however. Adviser included the email conversation with the SC representative. NAFSA note: See the NAFSA Adviser's Manual 3.37.6.3: An I-765 application for OPT must include a copy of the I-20 with an original DSO signature in both pages 1 & 3, and student’s signature on page 1. |
| Region XII |
Submissions |
| Adviser reports submitting an I-129 for H-1B, and including a duplicate copy of the petition with notice to 'forward to KCC'. It appears that the mailroom separated the two copies of the petition and processed them separately, because adviser has now received 2 notices (with different WAC#s). One notice is a faxed RFE, and the other notice is a Rejection Notice for 'lack of proper fee', with the copy of the petition returned to adviser. |
|
| Adviser reports that although she has been at the same institution for six years she has had trouble with service centers recently. Adviser called the new 800 number was told that she could not request any information on any cases as they did not have her in their "system.” Adviser was told to contact the SC. Additionally, the officer told the adviser that she would need to have the beneficiary of the H-1B present in order for them to be able to provide any information. How can adviser go about getting signatory information into the system since she is not a recognized signatory? | 1 |
| School submitted an H-1 petition marking the duplicate copy of the petition with a yellow sheet of paper with the notation, "Please forward for PIMS processing." When the approval arrived a notice was included that read: "The Form I-129 petition was submitted requesting an extension of stay or change of status and the petitioner did not include a duplicate copy of the petition or did not clearly indicated that the duplicate was submitted expressly for the purpose of consular notification." So, when noting the duplicate copy it's essential to stick to the "Please send this copy to KCC upon approval" notation on bright colored paper. | 1 |
| Pending application for Optional Practical Training nearly 5 months is causing extreme hardship for F-1 student, F-2 spouse, and US citizen child. Application was received 2/27/2008, with a requested start date of 4/29/2008. By mid-May (75 days), no information was available, so SC was contacted to ask about the status. The subcommittee replied that the application had been transferred to clerical staff for processing of an RFE. The RFE was received on 5/29/2008 (91 days after filing), asking for copies of I-20s that had been included in the initial filing. The requested documents were mailed again 6/6/2008 and entered into SC system on 6/10/2008. No decision has been made through today 7/21/2008 (40 days from RFE reply, and 131 days from original application date). SC was contacted by phone this morning and told the student that they would need the remaining 20 days allowed to them for the processing of RFE materials. This situation has caused ongoing trouble for the family of our student and the University as well. This student was meant to be hired as a Post-Doc after the completion of his program in April to continue his research. The family has been without income during this time and the University's research efforts have been stalled in this lab. A processing period of 131 days is excessive for a standard F-1 OPT application, even with the RFE. |
1 |
