IssueNet Archive - July 21 to August 31, 2007

IssueNet submissions fall into two categories. Report an Issue submissions are forwarded to Policy and Practice Committee point people. The point people then send monthly reports with their analyses and recommendations to 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.
Not sure which to use? Still have a question?

Issue Summaries

• F-1/SEVIS issues (5)
  
  
• Employment-Based issues (1)
  
  
• Benefits for international students, scholars, and faculty (11)
•  Social Security (1)
  
  

• Education Abroad Issues (7)
  
  
• Entry (5)
  
• US Visas (14)
  
  
• J/Exchange Visitor issues (3)
  
  
  

Education Abroad Issues	Submissions
Adviser reports that student was never notified of the need to set an appointment with the French consulate one month in advance (no more than three days before date of departure), and it is now impossible for the student to set an appointment before his flight leaves September 3. Adviser requests information regarding cancellations or a waiting list so student will not arrive late to his program.	1
Adviser reports that students are unable to get appointments at the French Consulate. The site says to make appointments three weeks in advance, but in fact students who have been trying for 6 weeks cannot get an appointment before their scheduled departure.	1
Adviser reports that a student applying for a long-stay student visa at the French Consulate was questioned about her family background. The student disclosed her family history (all immediate family members are now U.S. citizens) but was told by the consular officer that it would take 3- 5 weeks to process her long-stay visa application, despite having all of the required documents. The student’s classmate accompanied her to the Consulate and was issued his long-stay student visa without delay. The 3 to 5 week processing time given to the student overlaps with her flight to France on Sept 3rd. The student was told by the consular officer that she would have to change her flight, and should call on Sept. 4th to learn the status of her visa application.	1
Adviser reports that due to inexperience with Campus France a student was delayed in getting all his visa requirements met. Visa appointment was scheduled for a week after student’s departure date. Student would like earlier appointment date.	1
Adviser reports that student has been unable to acquire visa from the Spanish Consulate, despite having submitted all the required documentation and the student’s passport on June 11th. The student has twice called the Consulate, and been told only that there are 300 other people who also need their visas and the source of the delay is unknown. The student is due to leave August 28th. Adviser requests that updates from NAFSA be communicated to advisers regarding current visa delays, perhaps with information obtained from Consulate officials.	1
Adviser reports that a number of students scheduled to leave for Spain at the end of August/early September still do not have visas and are being told they will probably not get them in time for departure date. Adviser asks if she can expect expedited action or should advise students to register for classes on campus.	1
Adviser reports that two UK-bound students had difficulty using the web calendar to schedule appointments to deliver their passports and documentation to the British Consulate, despite completion of online applications. Students are wary of mailing their passports to the Consulate with only two weeks left before their Sept. 1st departure date.	1

Entry and Travel	Submissions
Adviser reports that a full-time Canadian student was not issued an F-1 I-94 card nor was his I-20 stamped during the pre-flight inspection. Adviser wrote a letter to the international airport’s CBP asking them to issue an F-1 I-94 card and stamp his I-20. The student received F-1 stamped I-20 without an F-1 I-94 card, and reported that a senior CBP officer explained to him that Canadians do not need an F-1 I-94 card. The officer further stated that it was an error if Canadian citizens are issued F-1 I-94 cards. The institution was also contacted by a parent of a Canadian student who was denied of an F-1 I-94 card at a different international airport. As this problem is occurring in multiple airports, adviser requests action with DHS to clarify the standard procedure.	1
Adviser reports that a continuing F-1 student attempted to re-enter the US with a valid I-20 that was signed for travel the previous year, making the signature valid. However, the POE officer stated that the signature was not valid and sent the student to secondary inspection. The student was permitted to enter the US with an I-515A. Adviser reports that this student should have been permitted to enter the US without an I-515A and should have been granted D/S. Additionally; the address for submitting I-515s listed on the I-515A document was incorrect and was circled by the officer.	1
Adviser reports that an F-1 student traveled through the US on her way from Argentina to Germany for a school-related conference. The student is registered for the summer and will also return to school for the coming academic year. The student presented F-1 documents and was told by the POE officer that she should have a tourist visa. The student was finally admitted in F-1 status, but a notation of some sort was made on her electronic record and the student was warned that she may have trouble entering in F-1 status on her way back to Berlin. The institution wrote a letter of explanation for her to present on the way back.	1
Adviser reports that an F-1 student who has been living in Colorado as H-4 with an H-1 parent drove to the border at El Paso, TX, to obtain F-1 status. Student stated that border officials would not let her come in as F-1 until she presented an I-797 receipt notice (from I-901 SEVIS fee payment). The student presented a computer print-out receipt, but was still kept at the border. The adviser has confirmed payment in SEVIS and suggested that student let the officers know that she spoke with her adviser and SEVIS had been updated. The student spoke with two officers and both confirmed that she needed an I-797 before she could enter as F-1.	1
Adviser reports that recently many students returning from the Canadian land border were admitted for the wrong visa. Dependents of students were also incorrectly admitted, for example, an F2 was admitted as a J-2. The local I-94 unit was helpful, but in many cases things were made more difficult. A student who had already graduated and was seeking reentry on a tourist visa was denied and was admitted on a student visa regardless of the fact that the student’s SEVIS record was no longer active. Additionally, the stamped "date of entry" on I-94 was incorrect, making follow-up difficult particularly for those whose visa admission was wrong.	1

US Visas	Submissions
Adviser reports that a student coming in for a Master's program was issued incorrect documentation: a 221G at the Kolkota, India Consulate. The questions were research related and did not apply to the student’s program. The student completed the form and returned it but the Consulate was not satisfied with the responses. As the student is not coming for research purposes, adviser would like advice on how to assist the student in obtaining the correct documentation.	1
Adviser reports that an Iranian student applied for an F-1 visa in Nicosia, Cyprus, on 5/29/07. Nearly two months later, the student is still going through security clearance.	1
Adviser reports that a prospective J-1 Research Scholar applied for a J-1 entry visa on 02/28/2007 and has not yet received a visa. The response to the student’s inquiries has been "Your application is still under an administrative processing. You will be called as soon as we are able to issue you a visa. Please wait for our call." His date of departure was 7/27/2007, and was to begin at the institution on 08/01/2007.	1
Adviser reports that a student, who first entered the U.S. as a summer camp visitor in 2005, then re-entered under a U.S. high school program in 2006-2007, returned to China and applied for entry to the university as a college student. Denial was based on the student presumably having promised, as a high school student, not to apply for entry to college. Tuition and fees were prepaid to the university. The student was accused of being deceptive and in violation of intent. Adviser requested a review on the grounds of a State Department memo exempting teenagers from exclusion based on intent. The second interview also ended in denial of the student visa.	1
Adviser reports that a student from Peru was denied a visa to study English	1
Adviser reports that a Colombian student is trying to obtain a J-1 EV visa to come to study in the U.S. as a short-term exchange student. Student has the same name as another Colombian national with a flag on his record. DOS has advised student and family that the visa clearance could take 2-3+ weeks to come through.	1
Adviser reports that consulates in India and China are requiring F-1 students to show funding for the entire program of study when, according to the regulations, they are only required to show 1 year of funding as listed on the I-20. They are being denied in the case of noncompliance.	1
Adviser reports two embassies (Stockholm and Malta) requested form DS-7002 for individuals classified as research or short-term scholars. The DS-7002 form is only required for trainees/interns.	1
Adviser reports that a Vietnamese student was denied a visa to study English because student already had a university degree from Vietnam. In addition, another Vietnamese student reports he was only able to get a visa after paying extra money.	1
Adviser reports that on three occasions visa officers have denied new visas to current F-1 students in good standing to return to the U.S. This happened in Paris, France; Chennai, India; and to an Iranian citizen applying in Turkey. In all cases the students were current students in good standing, had proper financial documentation, and the expenses listed on the I-20s were actual and normal. In all cases the visa officer stated the student was at risk of becoming a "public charge" and denied the visas. The students are currently unable to return to their courses of studies	1
Adviser reports that the wife of a male F-1 student was denied a visa in Seoul because she needed to show her husband’s “state visa.” The husband had obtained an F-2 I-20 for his spouse. He originally attended school in a neighboring state but transferred to new school/state after the completion of his Master’s. The husband’s F-1 visa is valid until Aug. 2008.	1
Adviser reports that the visa of a student returning from Saudi Arabia was no longer valid upon reentry. The student was in F-1 status and attending another school in the US, and then applied and was accepted to another institution. His school transferred his record to the new institution and the student was issued a new I-20 so that he could return to Saudi Arabia for the summer. The adviser told the student that his visa would be fine for him to return on. When the student returned home he contacted the Consulate in Riyadh and asked if his visa was still valid. The Consulate told him that it was necessary for him to apply for a new one.	1
Adviser reports that a J-1 Research Scholar applicant has been was denied a visa on the grounds that the prospective Exchange Visitor had been issued a B-1/B-2 visa on May 16, 2007 and was now requesting a “change of category”. The university issued a DS-2019 form for the applicant for participation in a research project for the 2007-2008 academic year. Part of the visitor’s research activities would include enrollment in courses at the university, so entering the U.S. for the purpose of pursuing research-related coursework would be inappropriate on a B-1/B-2 visitor visa. The Exchange Visitor is also being supported both by the university and by a Higher Education Commission Grant from the government of Pakistan. The terms of the grant award require the Exchange Visitor to return to a major university in Pakistan to complete her PhD degree after the completion of her research project and to pursue employment in the country of origin, so a visa denial based on INA Section 214(b) would also seem inappropriate. Adviser requests Consular Services in the US Embassy in Islamabad to reconsider this individual and her dependents’ applications for J-1 and J-2 visas.	1
Adviser reports that the visa of a student returning from Saudi Arabia was no longer valid upon reentry. The student was in F-1 status and attending another school in the US, and then applied and was accepted to another institution. His school transferred his record to the new institution and the student was issued a new I-20 so that he could return to Saudi Arabia for the summer. The adviser told the student that his visa would be fine for him to return on. When the student returned home he contacted the Consulate in Riyadh and asked if his visa was still valid. The Consulate told him that it was necessary for him to apply for a new visa.	1

SSA	Submissions
Adviser reports a delay in the granting of a socials security number. Student is an F1 through POE, and it has been over 5 months since she has submitted an application for a SSN. No reason was given for the delayed processing, only that they needed to 'verify' her status. Student has been working on campus & the Human Resources Department is frustrated that her SSN has not yet been granted.	1

Employment Based

Submissions

Adviser reports that he has tried to add a new user to the school’s PERM account since late May. The user would receive a log-in ID and password, but cannot log on to the school’s system, and the person’s name on the user list. The adviser has tried adding the same user 5-6 times as directed by PLC Help Desk, but without success. The adviser reports being told by the Help Desk, in various communications, that it was not an employer account, EIN does not exist in the system, there was no problem, or that he was not allowed to add/delete users, etc. The adviser reports that he told them that he had authority in PERM to add or delete users in the past and that PERM applications have been certified with the same EIN, and DOL asked the adviser to re-register his school.

1

SEVIS issues	Submissions
Student’s OPT card was approved but SEVIS shows it as pending (the information from CLAIMS was not sent to SEVIS). Adviser contacted SEVP Help Desk to inquire; Help Desk required DSO to fax information to the Help Desk within 4 business days. This is information that they could ask us to fix in SEVIS where possible (show that the OPT was approved), and respond with a fax if we can't correct the data.	1
Adviser reports concern about the registration/current session end date. It is difficult to register IEP students whose I-20 is expiring at the end of the session, as it is unknown at registration whether a student may extend their program at the school (e.g. if they won't get enough TOEFL score to transfer to a college/university). If advisers check the box verifying the student is in last session of his/her program, they do not know if they will be able to extend their program before the I-20 expires. Advisers would like to receive some clarification from SEVP on this, or to have the previous function back, when they were able to enter next session end date which is beyond the students' program end date. At this time, advisers do not know how to register these students for the current session.	1
Adviser reports that the SEVIS records with the notation " OPT -Pending" are being auto-completed by the SEVIS Maintenance Job sixty days after the end date on the OPT request instead of the actual OPT end date. For example, the adviser has a completed record for a student whose actual OPT end date was 6/15/07 . The student's requested OPT end date was 5/14/07 and so SEVIS completed the record on 07/14/07 (about a month too early). In the past, the fact that they were still in OPT -Pending status kept these records active indefinitely. The adviser is concerned that the dates on the OPT card are sometimes different from the requested dates.	1
Adviser reports that SEVIS did not alert her to the problem of expenses being greater than funding (in RTI , item 7 was greater than item 8) while doing an extension of an F-1 ESL student who has dependents. The only way to catch the mistake is to review the I-20 at the end of the process, and then correct the matter manually.	1
Adviser requests more information regarding how to update SEVIS when international students take a leave of absence from their U.S. studies. Several regulations and interpretations appear to be in conflict with each other, such as the “Five Month Rule,” the policy for terminating a record for "Authorized Early Withdrawal," etc.	1

J Exchange Visitor	Submissions
Advisers report concerns that the move to Pay.gov will put added burden on university purchasing departments as a result of new payment policies. There is confusion over how individual Exchange Visitors will have to make payments, either directly with personal credit cards or indirectly, by repaying the universities with checks, if indeed they may pay at all and do not have to go through program sponsors. Advisers request from the DOS an established means of paying required fees.	1
Adviser reports concern over the implementation of Pay.gov program at public institution. To comply, they will have to create a work-around in order to accept payment from exchange visitors and pay the federal government on their behalf. Adviser expressed concern about meeting the 8/31 deadline. Adviser has contact DOS, but not gotten much response.	1
Adviser reports that the EVP Academic Division is not responding to his attempts to add AROs to his staff. Request was submitted in SEVIS on approx. 7/9/07 , followed by FedX with signed DS-3037s, copy of passports, notary signature, etc.	1

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 I	Submissions
Adviser reports that the USCIS website states that a student’s EAD card was ordered for production on June 15, 2007 . The card has not been received and the online case status has not changed. The website says to allow 30 days for the card to be mailed, and the student has waited for more than 8 weeks. The student has attempted unsuccessfully to make an inquiry about the status of his card via the Customer Service phone number. The student has an offer of employment and has had to delay his start date twice in order to wait for the EAD.	1
Adviser reports a problem opening I-765 (rev. 7/30/07 ) with Adobe reader. When opening the newly revised I-765 on the USCIS website, an Adobe Reader error dialog box opens stating that the barcode information on the form is incorrect. Adviser is unsure if the form is still functional or if advisers should wait for a working form to be posted.	1

Region II	Submissions
Adviser reports that student has not received the EAD approved for economic hardship.	1
Adviser reports that a change of status application from F-2 to F-1 was receipted on May 30 th and is still pending. The student has a graduate assistantship starting August 15th and needs F-1 status to accept employment. Student seeks expedited action.	1
Adviser reports that a student has had I-539 in system since April; service center has been in contact and was working on the case during the summer. However, they have RFE'd twice; the student responded immediately and the adviser faxed the same. Progress has not been made and the student's last day to register is 9/5/07 . She has an assistantship in her dept. and will lose it if not able to register this term.	1

Region IV	Submissions
Adviser reports that student's OPT approval notice was marked "Return to Sender" in error and returned to the Texas Service Center . Student's SEVIS record shows that OPT was approved.	1

Region VII	Submissions
Adviser reports that student applied for economic hardship. The student’s application and supporting documentation were returned with a cover letter stating “Petitions must have original signatures—not a facsimile (e.g. stamp).” The I-765 petition sent was the original. Additionally, the student is being asked to pay a fee of $340.00 when the original petition was sent on July 25, 2007 when the $180.00 fee was still in effect. The cover letter said that the filing fee was being returned, but no check was enclosed with the returned package. The student reports that his check was cashed and the photos submitted were not returned. The TSC rep emailed the adviser that she would respond within seven days, but there has been no response in more than two weeks.	1
Adviser reports that student was denied an I-539 reinstatement from the Service Center by email, without a full explanation and the proper hard documentation. The adviser contacted the service center to inquire as to when she’d receive the physical documentation, and was told it would be two weeks.	1

Region X

Submissions

Advisor reports that stud ent's record was transferred to his institution several months after the student had transferred to the school. His previous school held his record without explanation. The student has been unable to determine the status of the pending reinstatement request that was filed from his former school on his behalf. This has been pending for approximately two years. The adviser contacted USCIS in April and was told that the request was "reassigned." To date the student has not received word and has been unsuccessful in his attempts to contact USCIS.

1

Region XI

Submissions

Adviser reports that a change of status request was denied due to the late filing of the student’s documentation. Student was first here on J1 visa. The J1 was changed to B1/B2 in August of 2006, approved for Sept 21st, 2006 - Feb 20, 2007 . Student submitted an application to university on Dec. 21 st, 2006 for the spring semester, beginning Jan 22, 2007 . On May 4, 2007 student received notification that her change of status request was denied due to the late filing of her documentation, stating that her documentation was received on March 2nd. A motion to reconsider was filed stating that the school takes full responsibility for the late filing, due to a clerical error. Student went to local office and was informed that the motion to reconsider has been denied on July 17, 2007 . Adviser never received any notification that the motion had been denied.

1

Region XII

Submissions

Adviser reports that an applicant to the college filed an I-539 for a change of status from B2 to F-1. The applicant received an approval notice for B-2. DSO contacted CIS-service center by email and received the response, “File will be retrieved within 30-45 days for review for possible error.” Region XII Reg Ombud has contacted service center to confirm whether they will issue an amended notice while awaiting retrieval of file from HBG file storage facility.

1