MillenniumPost
World

US issues clarification on higher education exemptions

The US has said that in order to qualify for an H-1B numerical cap exemption based upon a master's or higher degree, the conferring institution must have qualified as a "United States institution of higher education" at the time the beneficiary's degree was earned.

As mandated by the Congress, the US Citizenship and immigration Services (USCIS) can issue up to 65,000 H-1B visas, the most sought-after by Indian IT professionals, every year.

In addition to this, another 20,000 foreign students having masters or higher degree from a US institute of higher education are exempted from the 65,000 Congressional limit.

A clarification memorandum from the USCIS came in response to a petition in this regard by Leena R Kamat from California who temporarily sought to employee people under H- 1B visas having higher education.

The Director of the California Service Center denied the H-1B petition, concluding that the beneficiary did not qualify for the claimed master's cap exemption.

More specifically, the Director determined that the degree-conferring institution was not accredited at the time it awarded the beneficiary's master's degree, and thus the beneficiary had not earned his degree, as required, from a "United States institution of higher education".

As per the US memorandum dated May 23, which was released to the press today, the USCIS ruled that the H-1B applicant had earned his degree from the International Technological University (ITU), in California, on December 31, 2010, before the university obtained its pre-accreditation or accreditation status. The record contains a letter from ITU, stating that the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) granted ITU "Candidacy status" in 2011.

In April, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order for tightening the rules of the H-1B visa programme to stop "visa abuses".

Trump said his administration is going to enforce 'Hire American' rules that are designed to protect jobs and wages of workers in the US.

The executive order also called upon the Departments of Labour, Justice, Homeland Security, and the state to take action against fraud and abuse of our visa programmes.

The Trump administration has rolled also out a new questionnaire for US visa applicants worldwide that asks for social media handles for the last five years and biographical information going back 15 years.

The new questions, part of an effort to tighten vetting of would-be visitors to the United States, was approved on May 23 by the Office of Management and Budget despite criticism from a range of education officials and academic groups during a public comment period.

Critics argued that the new questions would be overly burdensome, lead to long delays in processing and discourage international students and scientists from coming to the United States.

Under the new procedures, consular officials can request all prior passport numbers, five years' worth of social media handles, email addresses and phone numbers and 15 years of biographical information including addresses, employment and travel history. Officials will request the additional information when they determine "that such information is required to confirm identity or conduct more rigorous national security vetting," a State Department official said on Wednesday.

The State Department said earlier the tighter vetting would apply to visa applicants "who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities."

President Donald Trump has vowed to increase national security and border protections, proposing to give more money to the military and make Mexico pay to build a wall along the southern US border. He has tried to implement a temporary travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority nations that a US appeals court refused to reinstate, calling it discriminatory and setting the stage for a showdown in the Supreme Court.
Next Story
Share it