The Insightful Immigration Blog
  • Home
  • Cyrusmehta.com
  • About Us
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu
Cora-Ann Pestaina

USCIS Denying Change Of Status For F-1 Students With Over 12 Months Of Curricular Practical Training

October 23, 2018/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cora-Ann Pestaina

An F-1 student who has received more than 12 months of Curricular Practical Training (CPT) may be found by United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), to have violated F-1 status and thus ineligible to be granted a change of status in the US. This is yet another disturbing trend that we first mentioned in an earlier blog where we indicated that USCIS had started challenging F-1 maintenance of status through CPT by issuing Requests for Evidence on pending H-1B petitions requesting a change of status in the US.

Essentially, 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10) provides that a student may be authorized a total of 12 months of practical training, and becomes eligible for another 12 months when the student changes to a higher educational level. Under 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i), however,  “students who have received one year or more of full time curricular practical training are ineligible for post-completion academic training.” Note that the inclusion of “academic training” appears to be an obvious typographical error, and it ought to have been “practical training” when the rule was last promulgated on 12/11/2002. [revised 10/25/2018] This could clearly be interpreted to mean that a student can receive more than one year of CPT and, if so granted, this student would simply become ineligible to receive any practical training after graduation. This appears to have been the prevailing interpretation by all government agencies and CPT has continued to be routinely granted by Designated Student Officers (DSO) through the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) that is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Enter the new USCIS in the era of Trump. Suddenly, USCIS has begun to interpret the regulations to mean that a student may only be granted a total of 12 months of any type of practical training. This, despite the fact that ICE, its sister agency, authorized more than 12 months of CPT. USCIS is choosing to completely disregard the unmistakable indication in 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i) that students may legitimately receive “one year or more” of CPT.

It is painfully obvious that the intent behind the regulation was only to prohibit students who had received more than 12 months of CPT from then also receiving Optional Practical Training (OPT) after graduation. The intent was not to penalize a student for receiving more than 12 months of CPT. First, the student could not receive more than 12 months of CPT if the CPT weren’t actually granted by a school DSO and entered into SEVIS. Accordingly, if there were any violation, it should be on the part of the school and not the student. The student should not be punished for failure to maintain status when that student followed all the appropriate steps to maintain status. Second, why is USCIS making a determination that such a student failed to maintain status when ICE is the agency that administers the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)? If ICE has not determined that a student failed to maintain status and if SEVIS indicates that the student is currently in status, then USCIS ought to acknowledge that. If there had truly been a violation of status then SEVIS would have so indicated.  And third, the regulations at 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10) are simply outdated. In March 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) amended its F-1 student visa regulations on OPT for certain students with degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) from SEVP-certified and accredited U.S. colleges and universities. Specifically, the final rule allows such F-1 STEM students who have elected to pursue 12 months of OPT in the U.S. to extend the OPT period by 24 months (STEM OPT extension). See 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C). Perhaps DHS could have also amended the regulations and removed all outdated sentences. Unfortunately, USCIS is now seizing upon such a sentence and using it to launch another attack on F-1 students.

In the case of the H-1B petition, USCIS can approve the underlying H-1B but deny the request for a change of status. In order to obtain H-1B status, the student would need to leave the US and apply for an H-1B visa at a US Consulate or Embassy abroad. At this point in time, upon receipt of a USCIS denial of a request for a change of status on an H-1B petition, the F-1 student would only have accrued unlawful presence from August 9, 2018 under USCIS’ unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II).  Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Very few students will trigger the permanent bar as they generally do not try to reenter the US without being admitted or paroled.   Students in receipt of a denial of a change of status can take advantage of the current grace period until February 5, 2019. However, if the student departs the US later than February 5, 2019, he or she will be barred from re-entering for 3 or 10 years.

So what can be done? More so than ever before, F-1 students really need to be proactive about their maintenance of status and need to seek legal advice in the event that any rules are unclear or even just to ensure that they are on the right track. It will not be enough to rely on the DSO’s advice as the student will be the one punished in the end. But the bottom line is that this USCIS policy must be challenged in federal court! It is simply unconscionable to inflict the 3 and 10 year bars on a student who has diligently sought to maintain status in the US.

Tags: Curricular Practical Training, Denial of Change of Status, ICE, Maintenance of Status, More than 12 months, Optional Practical Training, SEVIS, unlawful presence, USCIS
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share by Mail
http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/andromeda/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CDMA_IIB_Logo_2016.png 0 0 Cora-Ann Pestaina http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/andromeda/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CDMA_IIB_Logo_2016.png Cora-Ann Pestaina2018-10-23 16:22:252018-10-25 17:10:28USCIS Denying Change Of Status For F-1 Students With Over 12 Months Of Curricular Practical Training
You might also like
“CULTURALLY UNIQUE” DEFINITION UNDER P-3 VISA CAN INCLUDE HYBRID OR FUSION ART FORMS OF MORE THAN ONE CULTURE OR REGION
F-1 Cap Gap Students In Limbo From October 1, 2018 Onward If Their H-1B Cases Have Not Been Approved
Can a STEM OPT Student Be Employed At A Third Party Client Site?
Opportunity Knocks in Disappointing Decision Vacating Stem Optional Practical Training Rule for Foreign Students
Police State for Noncitizens in the US?  
THE ENIGMA OF BOKHARI V. HOLDER: WORK AUTHORIZATION IS NOT LAWFUL STATUS
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search Search

Subscribe to our Blog

Recent Posts

  • Deportation Judges
  • USCIS Withdraws Appeal in Mukherji: What Changes – And What Does Not?
  • Federal Court Strikes Down Trump’s $100,000 H‑1B Fee: INA § 212(f) Is Not a Taxing Power
  • Dorcas v. USCIS: Federal Court Reaffirms That USCIS Must Adjudicate, Not Stonewall, Immigration Benefits
  • The Credibility Problem in Extraordinary Ability Cases: Why Evidence Matters More Than Ever in EB-1 and O-1 Petitions 

Archives

Links

Immigration Overview
Case Management
Firm in the News
General information on Immigration Law
USCIS Forms
Important Links

Contact Us

ONE BATTERY PARK PLAZA, 9TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10004

(212) 425 0555

 

INSZoom Software Inc.
Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers
American Immigration Lawyers Association American Immigration Lawyers Association
Copyright © 2019 Cyrus D. Mehta and Partners, PLLC. All rights reserved. | Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising
  • Link to X Link to X Link to X
  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to LinkedIn
  • Link to Rss this site
Link to: The Vulnerable Returning Green Card Holder Under the Proposed Public Charge Rule Link to: The Vulnerable Returning Green Card Holder Under the Proposed Public Charge Rule The Vulnerable Returning Green Card Holder Under the Proposed Public Charge... Link to: EB-5 Visa Cap Busting Lawsuit Opens Up Tantalizing Possibilities to Eliminate Backlogs in Employment and Family Preference Immigrant Visas Link to: EB-5 Visa Cap Busting Lawsuit Opens Up Tantalizing Possibilities to Eliminate Backlogs in Employment and Family Preference Immigrant Visas EB-5 Visa Cap Busting Lawsuit Opens Up Tantalizing Possibilities to Eliminate...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top