Tag Archive for: foreign students

Cyrus Mehta

USCIS Policy Manual Recognizes Dual Intent for Foreign Students as Expressed in Matter of Hosseinpour

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On December 20, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued updated policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual pertaining to nonimmigrant students in F and M status. An F-1 visa allows a nonimmigrant student to enter the U.S. to student at a college or university, while nonimmigrants in M status pursue training at a vocational school or other nonacademic institution. Pursuant to INA 101(a)(15)(F) and INA 101(a)(15)(M), foreign students in F and M status must “intend to depart from the United States after their temporary period of stay … and have a foreign residence that they have no intention of abandoning”.

The USCIS Policy Manual acknowledges that “The foreign residence requirement should be adjudicated differently for students than for other nonimmigrants. Typically, students lack the strong economic and social ties of more established applicants, and they plan longer stays in the United States. […] Considerations should include the student’s present intent, not what they might do after a lengthy stay in the United States”. Newly added language in the Policy Manual also makes clear that a foreign student who is the beneficiary of a labor certification or I-140 petition filed by a prospective employer can still demonstrate the requisite intent to depart the United States, stating: “A student may be the beneficiary of an approved or pending permanent labor certification application or immigrant petition and still be able to demonstrate their intention to depart after a temporary period of stay. USCIS officers generally view the fact that a student is the beneficiary of an approved or pending permanent labor certification or an immigrant visa petition as not necessarily impacting their eligibility for the classification, so long as the student intends to depart at the end of their temporary period of stay.” A further addition to the Policy Manual broadens the requirement that foreign students must maintain a residence abroad:

“If a student had a foreign residence immediately prior to traveling to the United States, even if such residence was with parents or guardians, they may be considered to be maintaining a residence abroad if they have the present intent to depart the United States at the conclusion of their studies. The fact that this intention may change is not a sufficient reason to deny them F classification. In addition, the present intent to depart does not imply the need to return to the country from which they hold a passport. It means only that they must intend to leave the United States upon completion of their studies. Given that most students are young, they are not expected to have a long-range plan and may not be able to fully explain their plans at the conclusion of their studies.”

This update to the Policy Manual is not only a welcome clarification for foreign students, but it also brings USCIS policy in line with consular guidance and established case law. Section 402.5-5(E)(1)(U) of the Foreign Affairs Manual, for example, instructs consular officers as follows:

If a student visa applicant is residing with parents or guardians, you may consider them to be maintaining a residence abroad if you are satisfied that the applicant has the present intent to depart the United States at the conclusion of their studies.  The fact that this intention may change is not sufficient reason to deny a visa.  In addition, the present intent to depart, does not imply the need to return to the country from which they hold a passport.  It means only that they must intend to leave the United States upon completion of their studies.  Given that most student visa applicants are young, they are not expected to have a long-range plan and may not be able to fully explain their plans at the conclusion of their studies.  You must be satisfied at the time of the application for the visa that the applicant possesses the present intent to depart at the conclusion of their approved activities.

9 FAM 402.5-5(E)(1)(U)(c)

The new guidance is also in line with the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision in Matter of Hosseinpour, 15 I&N Dec. 191 (B.I.A. 1975), which recognized  inherent dual intent in nonimmigrant visas. Matter of Hosseinpour involved an Iranian citizen who entered the U.S. as a nonimmigrant student and later applied for adjustment of status. After his adjustment of status application was denied, he was placed in deportation proceedings and found deportable by an immigration judge on the ground that he violated his nonimmigrant status by filing an adjustment of status application. The BIA disagreed with this interpretation of the nonimmigrant intent requirement for foreign students, noting the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act had expressly removed a provision stating that an individual’s nonimmigrant status would automatically terminate if he filed an adjustment of status application. Thus, the BIA held that “filing of an application for adjustment of status is not necessarily inconsistent with the maintenance of lawful nonimmigrant status”. The BIA also referred to legal precedent which states that “a desire to remain in this country permanently in accordance with the law, should the opportunity to do so present itself, is not necessarily inconsistent with lawful nonimmigrant status.” (See Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1957); Bong Youn Choy v. Barker, 279 F.2d 642, 646 (C.A. 9, 1960). See also Matter of H-R-, 7 I & N Dec. 651 (R.C. 1958)).

USCIS’ new guidance appears to reaffirm the BIA’s holding in Matter of Hosseinpour and we refer readers to our prior blog, “Long Live Matter of Hosseinpour: Making the Case for Dual Intent in All Nonimmigrant Visas”. These changes also reflect the reality of many nonimmigrant students’ situations. A foreign student could intend to depart the United States at the end of their degree program, but simultaneously hope to stay in the country if an opportunity to do so arose. At the time of his entry into the U.S.,  the foreign student could hardly predict that he could later apply for adjustment of status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen spouse or a prospective employer would file an  I-140 petition. The fact that a foreign student desires to pursue one of these paths to permanent residence if the opportunity arises should  not mean that she cannot also possess the requisite nonimmigrant intent.

The flexibility afforded by Matter of Hosseinpour and USCIS’ new policy guidance can be extended to other categories of nonimmigrants, as well. A few categories of nonimmigrant visas, such as H-1Bs and L-1s,  expressly allow “dual intent” in INA 214(b), meaning that a visa holder may pursue permanent residence while simultaneously maintaining his nonimmigrant status.  Other nonimmigrant categories allow for quasi dual intent such as the O, E-1, E-2, and P categories. Nonimmigrants in these categories are not required to maintain a foreign residence but are still required to leave at the end of their authorized stay.   Other categories of nonimmigrant visas, however, are explicitly not dual intent, including E-3 visas, which allow Australian nationals to come to the U.S. perform services in a specialty occupation. Although an E-3 is also a “specialty occupation” visa, E-3 workers are more restricted from seeking permanent residence in the U.S. than those in H-1B status. Expanding the flexibilities reflected in USCIS’ additions to the policy manuals would greatly benefit nonimmigrants and better reflect the nuances inherent in today’s immigration landscape.

The clarification in the USCIS Policy Manual will have the greatest impact on those filing for a change of status to F-1 or M-1 from another nonimmigrant visa status such as H-1B, and who may be beneficiaries of I-130 or I-140 petitions. It would also assist dependents in H-4 status who are changing to F-1 status because their parent’s I-140 petition is stuck in the India EB-1, EB-2 or EB-3 backlogs and their age has not been protected under the Child Status Protection Act. They will not be held to the impossibly rigid standard of maintaining a foreign residence abroad they have not abandoned,  especially if they left their home country at a young age many years ago.  Under the new clarification they would be considered to be maintaining a foreign residence abroad so long as they had one prior to coming to the US even if it was with their parents or guardians and they have a present intent to depart at the end of their studies.

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

Cyrus Mehta

Save Optional Practical Training for Foreign Students

/0 Comments/in /by

DHS promulgated the F-1 STEM optional practical training (OPT) benefit, with the publication of the “24-month STEM OPT Rule” that became effective on May 10, 2016. See 81 FR 13039. This rule has been the subject of contentious litigation.  The Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WashTech) filed suit against both the 24-month STEM OPT rule and the standard 12-month post-completion OPT rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A summary of the progress of the litigation is available on this page on NAFSA’s website.

On July 1, 2019, the federal district court in DC in Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. DHS issued an important decision holding that the 12-month Optional Practical Training program regulation finalized in 1992 had been reopened by the 24-month STEM OPT Rule, which raises the issue of whether DHS has authority to administer a practical training program after an F-1 student completes the underlying degree. The court found that the 24-month STEM OPT rulemaking also had the legal effect of reopening the legacy INS 12-month post-completion OPT regulation that had been finalized in 1992. This means that the court no longer considers a challenge to DHS’s statutory authority to implement standard post-completion OPT to be outside the statute of limitations, and that the WashTech plaintiffs can challenge DHS’s underlying statutory authority to establish not only STEM OPT but standard post-completion OPT as well. There will be briefing and an ultimate court decision on whether DHS has authority to administer both the 12-month OPT and STEM OPT extension programs.

In the same July 1, 2019 decision, the federal district court further held  that organizations seeking to be intervenors had standing to do so, despite opposition by both plaintiffs WashTech and defendant DHS. This means that the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and US Chamber of Commerce will be carrying the important load of making the key arguments defending DHS’s authority, which is made most critical because it is not clear that DHS under the Trump administration, presently beholden to Buy American Hire American,  will zealously argue and defend its own authority.

If WashTech prevails, and OPT is eliminated, the result would be catastrophic.  After foreign students graduate from a US school, they can apply for one year of OPT. Those who graduate in STEM fields can pursue an additional 24 months of OPT.  The lawsuit claims that DHS has no authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to issue employment authorization to foreign students. The ability to pursue practical training following graduation is one of the main attractions for foreign students seeking to study in the US.

Although the DHS formally opposes WashTech, there are forces in the administration that would probably want the plaintiffs to prevail. Hence, the role of the intervenor organizations is crucial to ensure that OPT remains available for foreign students. Otherwise, foreign students would have to immediately leave the US upon graduation. A victory for the plaintiffs here would virtually eliminate the ability for foreign graduates to easily seek employment, which they can now do during the OPT period, and then apply for H-1B visas and other employment-based immigration options.

The provision pertaining to F-1 students at INA 101(a)(15)(F)(i) is admittedly ambiguous. It prescribes the eligibility criterion for a student to enter the United States, but does not indicate what a student may do after they have completed the educational program. For over 50 years, the government has allowed students to engage in practical training after the completion of their studies, which Congress has never altered.  Thus, a court should be more inclined to give deference to the Administration’s interpretation of INA 101(a)(15)(F)(i).  DHS is entitled to deference under Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under the oft quoted Chevron doctrine, courts will pay deference to the regulatory interpretation of the agency charged with executing the laws of the United States when there is ambiguity in the statute. The courts will step in only when the agency’s interpretation is irrational or in error. The Chevron doctrine has two parts: Step 1 requires an examination of whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If Congress had clearly spoken, then that is the end of the matter and the agency and the court must give effect to the unambiguous intent of the statute. Step 2 applies when Congress has not clearly spoken, then the agency’s interpretation is given deference if it is based on a permissible construction of the statute, and the court will defer to this interpretation even if it does not agree with it. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), while affirming Chevron, held that if there is an ambiguous statute requiring agency deference under Chevron Step 2, the agency’s interpretation will also trump a judicial decision interpreting the same statute.

The court in the WashTech litigation ought to uphold the ability of DHS to grant OPT to foreign students under Step 2 of the Chevron analysis. The DHS’s interpretation of INA 101(a)(15)(F)(i) should be given deference. Even if there is a judicial decision interpreting 101(a)(15)(F)(i) differently, the DHS’s interpretation ought to prevail under Brand X. In addition to Chevron deference, there is yet another doctrine that can uphold OPT. In Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978), the Supreme Court held that Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it reenacts its statutes without change. Practical training has existed even prior to 1952, and since the enactment of the INA in 1952, and during the overhaul in 1990, Congress and has not enacted any provision that would eliminate student practical training. There are old Board of Immigration Appeals decisions recognizing practical training such as Matter of T-, 1 I&N Dec. 682 (BIA 1958), which noted that the “length of authorized practical training should be reasonably proportionate to the period of formal study in the subject which has been completed by the student” and only in “unusual circumstances” would “practical training…be authorized before the beginning of or during a period of formal study.”

There are many good arguments that can be made to preserve OPT in the WashTech litigation. In addition to the legal arguments addressed above, imagine the damage that would befall US schools if they were not able to attract foreign students. US schools would suffer both financially and in terms of reputation to academic institutions in other countries. Those who come to the US to study also understand America more deeply, and would be able to promote American values when they return and assume important positions in their own countries. Hence, every effort should be made to uphold OPT that has been an integral part of the US immigration system for over 50 years. One effective way to do this is for employers, business organizations, foreign student associations, think tanks, bar associations and other interested organizations to file amicus briefs in the court case. Outside the courtroom, there is also need to convince the American people about the benefits that foreign students bring to the US, and that the elimination of OPT will encourage foreign students to pursue their newly acquired skills in other countries that will compete against America. The OPT program ought not to be viewed as a source for cheap labor, as some critics contend, as the program is temporary and allows a foreign student educated in the US to gain meaningful experience, and preventing that would harm the US economy. Another study states that the OPT allows employers to hire STEM graduates who are in short supply, and provides a bridge for students with badly needed skills to ultimately secure a chance under the H-1B visa lottery.    In the unlikely event that the courts agree with the plaintiffs, Congress would need to step in to enact provisions in the INA that uphold the OPT programs for foreign students as presently enshrined in the regulations. There is too much at stake for America to allow OPT to die just like that.

Cyrus Mehta

Positive Changes to 90-Day Misrepresentation Guidance in the Foreign Affairs Manual – Especially for Foreign Students

/0 Comments/in /by

In September 2017, the State Department abruptly amended the Foreign Affairs Manual to provide consular officers with broader grounds to find that foreign nationals misrepresented their intentions when they came to the United States on nonimmigrant visas.  A finding of fraud or misrepresentation under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) can result in a permanent ground of inadmissibility. I previously blogged on this development here and here,  I am blogging yet again because I am pleased to report on further recent changes,  which are more positive this time especially for foreign students.

In order to presume fraud or misrepresentation, the applicant must have engaged in conduct inconsistent with representations made to consular officers or DHS officers within 90 days of applying for a visa, admission or other immigration benefit. If the foreign national engaged in inconsistent conduct more than 90 days after entry, no presumption of willful misrepresentation arises, although consular officers may still find facts that provide a reasonable belief that the foreign national misrepresented his or her purpose of travel at the time of applying for a visa or admission into the US. Although this provision is popularly known as the “90 Day Misrepresentation Rule”, the FAM is not codified law or regulation, but merely sub-regulatory guidance for consular officials abroad. Thus, I prefer to call it guidance rather than a rule.

The latest modification at 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g)(2) cites the following examples of inconsistent conduct that can result in a presumption of willful misrepresentation:

(i)Engaging in unauthorized employment;

(ii) Enrolling in a course of academic study, if such study is not authorized for that nonimmigrant classification (e.g. B status);

(iii)A nonimmigrant in B or F status, or any other status prohibiting immigrant intent, marrying a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States; or

(iv)Undertaking any other activity for which a change of status or an adjustment of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment.

The big change is in (iii) where the words “or F status, or any other” have been stricken. The omission of these few words provides welcome relief to students in F status who study in the US as well as other nonimmigrants in status prohibiting immigrant intent such as J status. A student who travels abroad for vacation, but has planned to get married to a US citizen shortly after the vacation, no longer needs to fear being found to have willfully misrepresented his  or her intentions at the time of admission. Although (iii) contemplates marriage to a US citizen and taking up residence in the United States thereafter, it could encompass other scenarios, such as a student filing an adjustment of status application, based on an approved  I-140 petition with a current priority date, after returning from a brief trip overseas.

This welcome change appears to acknowledge an inherent dual intent in all nonimmigrant visa categories. In Matter of Hosseinpour, 15 I&N Dec. 191 (BIA 1975), the Board of Immigration Appeals following earlier precedents held that “a desire to remain in this country permanently in accordance with the law, should the opportunity to do so present itself, is not necessarily inconsistent with lawful nonimmigrant status.” Thus, conflating a desire to remain in the United States is not inconsistent with any nonimmigrant visa classification at the time of applying for the visa or admission. See e.g.Garavito v. INS, 901 F.2d 173 (1st Cir. 1990) (the filing of an immigrant visa petition on behalf of a foreign national does not negate nonimmigrant intent).

Such inherent dual intent as established in Matter of Hosseinpour is also applicable to one who enters the United States in B status too, but the B nonimmigrant still seems vulnerable to a charge of fraud or misrepresentation based on conduct inconsistent with what was represented to the consular or DHS officer. Still, there are other positive and sensible changes in the FAM that apply to all nonimmigrants, especially in the  preceding section at 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g)(1). For ease of reference, the entire section is reproduced below with the changes reflected in Red Italics.

(U) Activities that May Indicate A Possible Violation of Status or Conduct Inconsistent with Status

  1. (U) In General:
    1. (U) In determining whether a misrepresentation has been made, some questions may arise from cases involving aliens in the United States who have performed activities that are inconsistent with representations they made to consular officers or DHS officers when applying for admission to the United States, for a visa, or for another immigration benefit.  Such cases occur most frequently with respect to aliens who, after being admitted to the United States, engage in activities for which a change of status or an adjustment of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment of status.
    2. (U) In determining whether a misrepresentation has been made, some questions may arise from cases involving aliens in the United States who have performed activities that are inconsistent with representations they made to consular officers or DHS officers when applying for admission to the United States, for a visa, or for another immigration benefit.  Such cases occur most frequently with respect to aliens who, after being admitted to the United States, engage in activities for which a change of status or an adjustment of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment of status.
    3. (U) The fact that an alien’s subsequent actions are inconsistent with what was represented at the time of visa application, admission to the United States, or in a filing for another type of benefit does not automatically mean that the alien’s intentions were misrepresented at the time of either the visa application or application for admission to the United States.  To conclude there was a misrepresentation, you must make a finding that there is direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to meet the “reason to believe” standard, which requires more than mere suspicion and is akin to probable cause.  See In re Jose Manuel Isabel Diaz (BIA Dec. 30, 2013).  If the activities happened within 90 days after the visa application and/or application for admission to the United States, please see paragraph (2) below.

(U) Note: The case notes must reflect that, when applying for admission into the U.S. or for a visa, the alien stated either orally or in writing to a consular or immigration officer that the purpose of travel was consistent with the nonimmigrant visa class sought.  (For example: “The officer finds that the applicant told the officer at the port of entry that his purpose of travel was consistent with the visa class held.”)

 

The heading of 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g)(1) now reads “Activities that May Indicate A Possible Violation of Status or Conduct Inconsistent with Status” thus suggesting more discretion and leeway before a consular officer jumps to the conclusion that the application misrepresented his or her intention.  Notwithstanding the 90 day period, so long as one initially entered the United States with the intention that was consistent with the visa status, such as to visit the US for tourism, in B-2 status, but then genuinely changed one’s mind and got married to a US citizen within 90 days, the presumption of misrepresentation can be rebutted if it can be demonstration that the intent at the time of admission was consistent with the B-2 status. The guidance goes onto further state that even if the conduct was inconsistent to what was previously represented to the consular or DHS officer,  there should not be an automatic presumption of fraud or misrepresentation. Consular officers are not permitted to go along with a hunch or mere suspicion, the FAM cautions. Rather, consular officers must adopt the reason to believe standard: “To conclude there was a misrepresentation, you must make a finding that there is direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to meet the “reason to believe” standard, which requires more than mere suspicion and is akin to probable cause.  See In re Jose Manuel Isabel Diaz (BIA Dec. 30, 2013).”  “Probable cause” is generally associated with a reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty, see e.g. Ludecke v. United States Marshall, 15 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 1994).   Thus, the implementation of “probable cause” gives more room for an applicant to rebut an accusation of misrepresentation.

Finally, the insertion of  “engage in activities for which a change of status or an adjustment of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment of status” appears to be in harmony with prong (iv) of 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g)(2). Prong (iv) says the same thing: “Undertaking any other activity for which a change of status or an adjustment of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment.” As I had suggested in the prior prior blog, the applicant should only be penalized if he or she engaged in activities without applying for a change of status or adjustment of status. Assume that a person is admitted into the United States in B-2 status for purposes of tourism but who is also an exceptional violinist. Suppose this person begins to get paid for violin performances within 30 days of admission. Such an activity would likely be inconsistent with the purpose of the B-2 visa and she would probably be presumed to have misrepresented her intentions under the 90 day guidance. On the other hand, if this person’s employer first files a change of status from B-2 to O-1B (a visa for people who can show extraordinary ability in the arts or extraordinary achievement in the motion pictures or television industry) on the 30thday, and she only begins to concertize as a violinist after the O-1B petition and request for change of status from B-2 to O-1B is approved, a literal reading of the prong (iv) criterion suggests that the 90 day rule has not been implicated. This person undertook the work activity “for which a change of status would be required” and should not be presumed to have misrepresented under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) even though the change of status application was filed within 90 days.

It should be noted that this interpretation must be viewed from the State Department’s perspective that resulted in this guidance in the FAM. The USCIS, which adjudicates visa petitions within the US, will not be bound and the DOS is not trying to ask other agencies to follow this interpretation. Thus, what the DOS is really saying is that if the USCIS approves such a change of status petition that was filed within 90 days, a consular official will not find a person inadmissible for misrepresentation, if the USCIS already approved it. Also, since the salutary change for students in the FAM guidance is for consular officers, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer at the airport may not be guided by it, and may not even know about it. Thus, a foreign student who has resided in the United States for several years coming back from a brief weekend trip from Canada could still be suspected for misrepresenting his or her intentions as a nonimmigrant if there is a plan to marry a US citizen and adjust status in the US.

It is hoped that the change in the FAM guidance benefitting foreign nonimmigrant students will guide USCIS and CBP too. It makes little sense to penalize a bona fide foreign student who plans to marry and adjust status just because of a short vacation overseas. The inherent dual intent wisely recognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals in all nonimmigrant visa categories in Matter of Hosseinpour ought to be part of guiding policy for all the agencies administering the Immigration and Nationality Act. One who enters the United States as a nonimmigrant to pursue the objectives of the visa, but who also desires to immigrate, should not be viewed in the same way as one who commits blatant fraud. Nonimmigrants should be allowed to follow their destiny as it naturally unfolds in the United States without having to worry about being accused of engaging in inconsistent actions within 90 days of their admission.

Cyrus Mehta

To Leave Or Not To Leave: The Devastating Impact of USCIS’s Unlawful Presence Policy on Foreign Students

/0 Comments/in /by

The new USCIS Policy on Unlawful Presence for F, J and M Nonimmigrants took effect on August 9, 2018. This policy has had the effect of rendering nonimmigrants in F, J and M status, mainly students, unlawfully present upon being found to have violated their status.

Under the new policy, unlawful presence started accruing on August 9, 2018 based upon a prior finding of a violation of status. 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).

February 5, 2019, will be the 180th day from August 9, 2018 according to a web based date calculator. If the USCIS has determined that the foreign student violated status at some point in the past, even prior to August 9, 2018, this individual who does not depart on or before February 5, 2019, will face a 3-year bar from re-entering the US. In order to play safe, the individual should leave the US even before February 5 to avoid risks with flight delays or a difference of opinion with a consular official regarding the exact date and time of departure from the US. Those who violated their status after August 9, 2018 should start counting the 180 days from  the date of the status violation, which will now be after February 5, 2019.

Individuals have been found to have been in violation of their status for a number of reasons, and at times the reason may not be so readily obvious. The determination is often even erroneous, but since August 9, 2018,  the student would have begun to accrue unlawful presence and will face a 3 -year bar upon departure from the US after February 5, 2019.  It is one thing when a student drops out of school and engages in unauthorized unemployment. This is an obvious violation of F-1 status. One instance of a less obvious violation is when an  F-1 student who has received more than 12 months of Curricular Practical Training (CPT) may be found by USCIS to have violated F-1 status and thus ineligible to be granted a change of status in the US.  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.

This supposed finding of a status violation is erroneous as 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i) clearly contemplates a student to be authorized to receive more than 1 year of CPT. The school authorizes it, and this authorization is entered in the student’s SEVIS, which in turn is administered by ICE. If ICE authorizes more than 12 months of CPT, it is clearly erroneous and contradictory on the part of the USCIS to find that the student violated status.

Still, if one’s change of status request from F-1 to H-1B has already been denied, this student should leave the US by February 5, 2019. A departure after February 5, 2019, would likely result in a 3 year bar to reentry to the US. If an applicant for change of status has received a Request for Evidence (RFE) accusing him or her for not maintaining status for exceeding one year of practical training, then the dilemma to leave or not to leave becomes more acute. Not all allegations of violation of status based on being issued more than 1 year of CPT result in denials. Many have been able to overcome this finding in the RFE and successfully obtain a change of status from F-1 to H-1B. Thus, one who decides to remain in the US must carefully evaluate the risk in the likelihood of success or failure in overcoming an RFE of this sort. As there is some risk that the request for change of status may be denied, the student may feel that it is safer to leave the US by February 5 rather than take a chance and overcome the objection. If the student cannot overcome the objection, and leaves after February 5, the 3 year bar would have triggered.  However, this is a decision that each individual must make with his or her immigration attorney.

Others face different challenges. A student in F-1 Optional Practical Training may have been thought to have been unemployed for more than 90 days. Such an individual who is unemployed for more than 90 days ceases to be in F-1 OPT status (and if in STEM OPT more than 150 days). See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(E).  However, whether one is employed or unemployed may not be so readily obvious. The individual may be treated as an employee by the employer listed on the I-20, but the employer may not have paid her because there was no work during the 90 day period. But the student could have still been viewed as an employee by the employer. Again, one who faces an allegation of not maintaining status due to unemployment for more than 90 days has to make a risk assessment whether to stay in the US beyond February 5, 2019 or whether to leave by February 5.

Those who have found to have violated their status can salvage the situation by leaving the US by February 5, 2019. They still have time to do this. They can return again on another visa, such as the H-1B visa. If one wants to return again in F-1 status, and on the existing F-1 visa, care should be taken as the student may start accruing a new period of unlawful presence if he or she was not properly admitted into the US. If the student received a new I-20 to correct the violation prior to departure, then arguably the student would have been properly admitted and may not start accruing unlawful presence again.  However, after February 5, those who were found to have violated their status prior to August 9, 2018 will be trapped. If they leave after February 5, 2019, they will face a 3-year bar. If they leave after August 9, 2019, and if the violation occurred on or prior to August 8, 2018,  they will face a 10-year bar. The USCIS unlawful policy memo’s devastating impact on foreign students has already begun to unfold, and will become more acute after February 5.

The only silver lining in the horizon is a lawsuit, Guildford College et al v. Nielson,  that has been filed to challenge the unlawful presence policy. The plaintiffs have also subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction on December 14, 2018 to take effect on February 4, 2019. If the preliminary injunction is granted by February 4, 2019, students who have been accused of violating their status, especially those contesting erroneous allegations, can breathe easy for now as they do not have to make plans to depart by February 5.

Update – January 28, 2019: The court in Guildford College v. Nielson granted a temporary restraining order in favor of the two individual plaintiffs who would otherwise be impacted by the unlawful presence policy. This is a positive development.  Thus far, the the TRO only positively impacts the two plaintiffs and does not apply globally to all students who may be adversely impacted by the policy.  The court has granted a date on March 26, 2019 on the motion for preliminary hearing. If plaintiffs win on the merits at this hearing, that relief should provided global protection.

(The blog is for informational purposes only and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice)

Cyrus Mehta

Opportunity Knocks in Disappointing Decision Vacating Stem Optional Practical Training Rule for Foreign Students

/2 Comments/in /by

Adversity is the mother of progress

Mahatma Gandhi

I was at first greatly disappointed to find out that a federal district court judge vacated the 2008 STEM Optional Practical Training rule that extended practical training to F-1 students by an additional 17 months. However, if one reads Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WashTech) v. DHS closely, the decision does not look so bad and provides an opportunity for the Obama administration to further expand STEM practical training, as promised in the November 20, 2015 executive actions for skilled workers.

Foreign students can receive up to 12 months of OPT upon graduation. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security under President Bush’s administration published regulations authorizing an additional 17-months extension of the OPT period for foreign students who graduated in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematical) fields. Plaintiffs WashTech challenged both the 12 month OPT and the STEM OPT. The challenge to the original 12 month OPT rule was dismissed, but on August 12, 2015, U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle vacated the rule that extended OPT by 17 months for a total period of 29 months for STEM graduates. The 2008 rule was published without notice and comment, and the court agreeing with the plaintiffs ruled that the DHS had not shown that it faced a true emergency situation that allowed the agency to issue the rule without notice and comment.

It is disappointing that Judge Huvelle granted plaintiffs standing in the first place on the flimsy ground that they were currently employed as computer programmers, who were a subset of the STEM market. [Contrast this with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Arpaio v. Obama  two days later dismissing Sherriff Arpaio’s standing claim on the spurious grounds that the executive actions would serve as a magnet for attracting more undocumented immigrants to Arizona and fewer people would be deported as a result of these executive actions.] Although the plaintiffs in WashTech were not unemployed, Judge Huvelle speculated that “[a]n influx of OPT computer programmers would increase the labor supply, which is likely to depress plaintiffs’ members’ wages and threaten their job security, even if they remained employed.” It is also somewhat amusing that the judge found the F-1 and H-1B interrelated in order to justify that plaintiffs also had standing under the “zone of interests” doctrine. Without considering that the F-1 visa requires a non-immigrant intent while the H-1B allows for dual intent, the judge held that “F-1 and H-1B perform the interlocking task of recruiting students to pursue a course of study in the United States and retaining at least a portion of those individuals to work in the American economy.”

While this is the bad part of WashTech, the good news is that Judge Huvelle left intact the legal basis for the OPT rule on the ground that the DHS is entitled to deference under Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Pursuant to the oft quoted Chevrondoctrine, courts will pay deference to the regulatory interpretation of the agency charged with executing the laws of the United States when there is ambiguity in the statute. The courts will step in only when the agency’s interpretation is irrational or in error. The Chevron doctrine has two parts. Step 1 requires an examination of whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If Congress had clearly spoken, then that is the end of the matter and the agency and the court must give effect to the unambiguous intent of the statute. Step 2 applies when Congress has not clearly spoken, then the agency’s interpretation is given deference if it is based on a permissible construction of the statute, and the court will defer to this interpretation even if it does not agree with it.

Judge Huvelle in WashTech agreed that under Step 1 of Chevron, the provision pertaining to F-1 students at INA 101(a)(15)(F)(i) is  ambiguous and that Congress has not clarified the word “student”. It prescribes the eligibility criterion for a student to enter the United States, but does not indicate what a student may do after he or she has completed the educational program. Under Step 2 on Chevron, the 2008 rule was held to be a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous statutory provision.  For over 50 years, Judge Huvelle acknowledged, the government has allowed students to engage in practical training relating to their field of studies, which Congress has never altered. Indeed, in the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress included a three-year pilot program authorizing F-1 student employment for positions that were “unrelated to their field of study.” Congress would only do this, Judge Huvelle reasoned, because Congress recognized that practical training regulations long existed that allowed students to engage in employment in fields related to their studies. The decision goes into fascinating detail describing the history of practical training from at least 1947. Even after Congress overhauled the law in 1952, practical training continued, and still continued even after the Immigration Act of 1990 overhauled the H-1B visa by setting a numerical limit and imposing various labor protections. The decision also cites old Board of Immigration Appeals decisions recognizing practical training such as Matter of T-, 1 I&N Dec. 682 (BIA 1958), which noted that the “length of authorized practical training should be reasonably proportionate to the period of formal study in the subject which has been completed by the student” and only in “unusual circumstances” would “practical training…be authorized before the beginning of or during a period of formal study.”

Judge Huvelle finally and unfortunately, agreeing with the plaintiffs,  held that there was no emergency to justify the promulgation of the 2008 rule without notice and comment. H-1B oversubscription as a reason for the emergency in 2008 was “old hat” as the government conceded that the H-1B program has been consistently oversubscribed since 2004. Fortunately, Judge Huvelle sensibly realized that vacating the rule immediately would force “thousands of foreign students with work authorizations…to scramble to depart the United States.” Hence, the court stayed vacatur till February 12, 2016 during which time the DHS can submit the 2008 rule for proper notice and comment.  In the meantime, foreign students in STEM OPT have some respite, and those who are eligible for STEM OPT should be able to apply for a 17 month extension so long as they do so before February 12, 2016, although we need some affirmative guidance from the USCIS on this.

The DHS now has a golden opportunity to expand practical training through notice and comment even beyond a total of 29 months, and must do so on or before February 12, 2016 in compliance with the WashTech decision. Despite the protestations of Senator Grassley, who like WashTecstridently opposes the notion of foreign student practical training, Judge Huvelle’s decision has blessed the legal authority of the DHS to implement practical training under Chevrondeference. As discussed in my prior blog, Senator Grassley in his angry missive to the DHS had leaked that the DHS was  moving on new regulations to allow foreign students with degrees in STEM fields to receive up to a 24 month extension beyond the original 12 month OPT period even prior to the final Washtech decision.  If a student obtains a new degree, he or she can again seek a 24 month extension after the original 12 month OPT period. The proposed regulations would further authorize foreign graduates of non-STEM  degree programs to receive the 24-month extension of the OPT period, even if the STEM degree upon which the extension is based is an earlier degree and not for the program from which the student is currently graduating (e.g. student has a bachelor’s in chemistry and is graduating from an M.B.A. program).

While this will put tremendous pressure on the DHS to propose a rule for notice and comment before February 12, 2016, it would be well worth it before all talented foreign students who would otherwise benefit the United States are forced to leave. As a result of the H-1B cap, it is the STEM OPT that has allowed foreign students to be employed in the United States. The prospect of no STEM OPT combined with the limited number of H-1B visas annually would be devastating not only for the tech sector, but for American universities, foreign students and for the overall competitiveness of the United States.  WashTech may have successfully been able to obtain a vacatur of the 2008 rule effective February 12, 2016, but theirs is only a Pyrrhic victory since the court has essentially endorsed the legality of both the 12 month practical training periods and any extensions beyond that.