Naren D's Psych Blog

Subtitle

Essential record keeping and reporting requirements of F, M, and J visa nonimmigrant students to “Student and Exchange Visitor Information System” (SEVIS)


An analysis by Naren Selvaratnam MBPsS, BA, MSc.

Policy Overview


Policy Citation:

USA Patriot in 2003: “Uniting and strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.

8 CFR 214.3: Approval of Schools for enrollment of F, M, and J nonimmigrants

§ 8 CFR 214.3(g): Record keeping and reporting requirements

§ 8 CFR 214.3(g)(1): Student records (Focus of this policy analysis)

Policy guidance: SEVP Policy Guidance 1004-07


Policy Development:

In simple terms, the main purpose of this policy is to protect national security and prevent immigration related fraud through the establishment of Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SVEP), and Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) which requires Designated School Officials (DSO) and SEVIS certified universities to keep records and report on students on F status (academic study), M status (vocational study), and J status (cultural exchange) to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). SEVP and SEVIS are handled through ICE following The Homeland Security Act in the year of 2002. ICE comes under US Department of Homeland Security.

The following policy was developed following evidence of foreign students abusing their student status in 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, and 9/11 attack on World Trade Centre. Initially the attorney general of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) recommended an electronic system to monitor foreign students in 1995. Following this, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was established. It was later changed as SEVIS. The current SEVP program and SEVIS is a result of the US Patriot Act of 2003 under President George Bush’s regime.

Based on this policy, DSOs of SEVIS certified schools must report to SEVIS on the following of F, M, and J status students.


  • Student’s basic information
    • Nationality, Date of birth, Country of citizenship, etc.
  • Student’s academic standing
    • Record of coursework, grades, transfer credits, certifications for Curricular Practical Training (CPT) or Optional Practical Training (OPT).
    • Statement of graduation
  • Student’s current information such as his physical address.
    • In an instance of a change in student’s physical address, the student should notify the DSO, and DSO should report that to SEVIS.


The DSO is required to report students on pre-determined time intervals. Failure to report on students by the DSO or University would result in student loosing his/her student status, and the student will no longer be eligible for nonimmigrant student status.

A university’s failure to comply could lead the university to be stripped out of the SEVIS program certification, and they will not be able to enroll international students thereafter.


Intended outcomes

  • Reflect student status
  • Minimize data fixes on student records
  • Avoid unnecessary student reinstatement
  • Prevent on-site reviews
  • Protect national security
  • Prevent immigration-related fraud


Major advocates for the policy

  • INS Task Force
    • This task force included members from the state department, United States Information Agency, and experts in the administration of International Student Programs.
  • Department of Justice (DoJ)
  • Department of State (DoS)
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)


Major actors responsible for developing the policy

  • Attorney general of INS
  • Commissioner of INS
  • US Secretary of the State
  • George W. Bush
  • US Congress


Policy objectives

  • Efficient, and centralized tracking and monitoring of students and exchange visitors who come into United States through F visa, M visa, or J visa. This is done in order to reduce immigration related fraud, and to enhance national security.


Key component of the policy

  • Collecting information on students who are under F visa, M visa, and J visa, and report to SEVIS.
  • SEVIS should be funded by International students, and should be maintained by universities.


Policy Approval

  • Basic process followed
  • Reporting students to SEVIS as part of SEVP was established through USA PATRIOT Act in the year of 2003.
  • It was passed as a response to terrorist attacks in September 11, 2001.
  • The bill was passed at a voting rate of 98-1.


Proponents and opponents

  • FBI was a major proponent of the SEVIS system. FBI was only focusing on international students, and they further requested personal information on foreign students in order to be compared with Department of Justice’s “Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force” (FTTTF) database. This request was highly criticized and senators Ted Kennedy, and Patrick Leahy questioned the legality.
    • Although the SEVP received mixed international reaction, Malaysian embassy praised efforts of USA as Malaysian embassy during early 2000s was equally interested in tracking their students.
  • There were opposing groups for the implementation of SEVIS.
    • NAFSA: Association of International Educators
    • American Council of Education
    • National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC): strongly opposed the fee collection to run the SEVIS.
    • American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO): Refused to comply with FBI’s request to provide student personal information without a court order or subpoena
    • International student bodies (i.e. – Student protests at University of Wisconsin)


Date ratified

  • Voting was conducted on October 21, 2001, to be fully implemented by January 1, 2003.


Policy Implementation:


Implementation plan/procedures

  • Designated School Officials (DSO) should enter information on students to the system by SEVIS certified universities.
  • Information should be entered in a timely manner, and failure to enter data on a student would result in that student losing his/her eligibility of stay.
  • Student should provide consent to enter their data into SEVIS upon receiving form I-20 (certificate of eligibility for nonimmigrants on F1, M1, or J1 visa).
  • Students should pay a mandatory SEVIS fee of $200 upon receiving form I-20. This should be produced to the US consular office in the respective country of the student.
  • Changes of student’s physical address, major of study, telephone number, etc. should be entered to SEVIS by DSO.


Enforcement measures

  • 5,500 federal enforcement officers monitor the information of approximately 1.2 million international students across the United States.

Policy Analysis


Outcomes


Objectives fully met

  • SEVP and SEVIS are fully operational, and required information on international students are reported, and recorded at the appropriate time frames.
    • One record for one individual. Implementation on SEVP and SEVIS eliminated previously existed problems such as having multiple records for a given individual.
    • Through USA PATRIOT Act a few exceptions were made to “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act” (FERPA), allowing attorney general and his designees to access student records of students pursuant to an ex parte court order in connection with terrorism investigation.
    • Consent should be given mandatorily by international students to release their information to INS. This was implemented by adding the below given section to the Form I-20.
      • “I authorize the named school to release any information from my records which is needed by the INS pursuant to 8 CFR §214.3(g) to determine my nonimmigrant status.”
    • Mandatory for schools and universities to provide information on international students. Failure to provide the required information forfeits a school’s ability to further enroll international students.
    • 8000+ schools and universities and 1383 exchange programs were certified for SEVP as of early 2000s.
    • Centralized system where data is visible for federal officers at border security to further tighten immigration related fraud coming from foreign students.


Objectives partially met

  • Operations of SEVIS at Institution level: Difficulties recorded.
    • Added legal burden on universities since the implementation of SEVP increased the amount of paper work, and it is contradictory to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    • Due to the complexity of the SEVIS, mistakes could happen from DSOs. In an event where a DSO accidentally deletes a record of a student, it roughly takes about a year to fix the issue by DHS.


Objectives failed

  • Privacy
    • Privacy of international students are violated. The students are being tacked during their entire time, and it is against a person’s right to privacy. The consent for sharing information is obtained through the form I-20 where the student has no option of avoid using his/her signature since the signature is mandatory when the student goes for visas. The information on students is shared even before the student’s arrival to United States. Constant monitoring and tracking students feel like they are felons.
  • Lack of efficiency
    • It sometimes takes 30 to 60 minutes to enter data on a single student to the SEVIS. Thus, the schools that contain thousands of international students at any given time have a hard time entering data to SEVIS.
    • Along with the SEVIS, information on the students is screened by Department of States. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), science scholars who undergo the Visa Mantis Check had taken an average of 67 days to receive the clearance in order to obtain their visa.


Consequences

Intended consequences

  • Tightened security across US borders
    • This is one of the only advantages and a positive consequence of the establishment of the SEVIS. This provides key information to federal officers at border security and immigration, so that they could observe any grounds for inadmissibility through SEVIS.
  • Means of data utilization
    • The implementation of SEVIS is to analyze the data in order to track the students. Majority of the students and stakeholders are not bothered about INS’s involvement in this. However, a majority has concerns over FBI’s involvement in this.
  • Detention and jailing of students
    • Federal law enforcement officers at border security and immigration check students through SEVIS. In times of post 9/11, Associated Press reported that at least 6 Middle Eastern students were detained for a period of 48 hours due to not taking enough credits.
    • A student of University of Colorado was jailed due to lack of one semester hour, even after the student has obtained the permission from the university.
  • Financial constraints on students and universities
    • Students have to pay a mandatory fee of $200 for SEVIS
    • Universities have to bear the maintenance costs and expert personnel to manage and use the SEVIS. This puts additional costs on university. They often charge such fees on students as processing fees.
  • Contradiction with the “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act” of 1995
    • The act was passed in an effort to limit the number of unfunded federal mandates imposed by the federal government of state, local, and tribal governments.


Unintended consequences

  • Having data gathered through a centralized system and containing updated information helped schools and students immensely during turbulent times such as Hurricane Katrina. Most of the students in affected schools were transferred to other schools throughout the country thanks to the SEVIS. This is one of the unintended positive outcomes of the SEVIS.
  • Declined rates of student enrollment
    • Having the SEVIS implied the stringent immigration laws of United States on Students. This influenced the declined rate of international students to United States.
  • Stringent visa regulations on Middle Eastern and South Asian students
    • Further implementation of SEVIS, coupled with detention, and jailing of students were primarily targeted on Middle Eastern and South Asian students.
  • Stereotyping of students, especially from Middle East.
    • Establishment of SEVIS further gave an impression on the international arena on attempts to stereotype students especially from the Middle East.
  • Tracking people restricts people, and in a way it negatively impacts North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), where free exchange of ideas and people across the borders are encouraged.
  • Declined rates of international student population deprive US students from receiving exposure to foreign cultures. In a way this leads to a cultural isolation for American students. At the same time it indicates a decline of liberal education, especially in fine arts, literature, history, and world geography.
  • “International students are viewed as a market and economic resource to be expanded, shared, controlled, and secured as a commodity.” This was highly criticized saying such ideology implied colonial European imperialism.

Conclusion & Recommendations

This is a policy that is established to protect the United States and the country’s citizens from the foreigners (especially the ones who are on student visas) who come across borders. Although, the objective of tightening the security is achieved, it took a toll on the international students. There are many positives of SEVP. Having a centralized system with data entered on a timely basis helps the DHS to monitor and track students. SEVIS further helps in eliminating multiple records on individuals. This further increases the consistency of the information on the students in the database. From the federal government’s point of view, these are all good things.


As you go through the findings of the previous section, it is clear that the establishment of SEVP and SEVIS has made it a difficult process to pursue for universities. Difficulties in operation, including time constraints, and expertise required maintaining the online SEVIS system are noted. In a way Universities are negatively affected from this. The establishment of SEVP and SEVIS in a way stereotyped Middle Eastern and South Asian students. A clear decline of students was noted from Middle Eastern countries. In addition to the operational difficulties, universities that relied mainly upon international students and English language programs were hit hard following the declined rates. During post 2002 period, there was an overall decline of international students by 2.4%, and it was 8% for students coming from the Middle East. The same trend further accentuated with recent travel ban by Trump regime (this is not a fact relevant to the topic of interest here, however, this indicates how US policies affects the influx of international students to United States). Although the SEVP is a required program to tighten the security, putting a tremendous work on universities, and also encouraging universities to bear the maintenance costs further adds to the existing problem of operational difficulty. Furthermore, the program is said to have glitches that makes the work difficult for DSOs, and the SEVIS is known for its inefficiency as it sometimes take about an hour to enter data of a single student. One of the major reasons this has become an operation burden is that, information to SEVIS has to be entered when the student is enrolled to the school. In any school, out of all the students who get selected, a sizable proportion gets rejected of the visa. At times, the student might not come to United States. However, since the student was selected, a SEVIS record should be created in order to send the form I-20 to the student. The student would pay the SEVIS fee, and go to US embassy to obtain visa along with the form I-20. The government is benefited here as they have obtained the SEVIS fee. However, DSO has utilized work time that could have been allocated for something productive, rather than spending an hour entering data to SEVIS of a student who will not even come to the United States. This further elaborates the previously mentioned operational conundrum.


End of the day, it is the international students who get disadvantaged through this. Firstly, they have to pay for SEVIS, which is not a process established to serve them (however, SEVIS has helped them at emergency times, i.e. – Hurricane Katrina). Most universities add their maintenance costs of SEVIS as processing fees in students’ tuition. Apparently, international students fund a program that does more harm than good for them. Since the security is tightened, federal officers in border security, especially in post 9/11 period were more cautious when checking SEVIS and students were detained and in some cases jailed for not having enough credits for the upcoming semester. This kind of activity should never take place, and it certainly has serious repercussions on a person’s education experience in the United States. Further, tracking and monitoring international students deprive them from their own privacy because the federal government is capable of seeking personal information of students at their will, if they sense any relation to terrorist activity. It should also be noted that most of the detained and jailed students had nothing to do with terrorism. Tracking students might help to identify students who abuse their visas. However, it is evident that SEVIS is not a valid technique to monitor terrorist activity. Most of the time, it is innocent students who have to pay the price for errors generated through this entire system. Furthermore, having a tracking system and constant monitoring of students stereotype them and it certainly hinders the productivity of those students. If the students are viewed as a market commodity that could be shared, and expanded; thus, it should be controlled in a way not to harm the growth of it. International students boost US economy and it is a $30 billion industry. Students get benefited from the US education, at the same time they contribute to United States through economic means, intellect, and also exposing US students to different cultures. When there is a win-win situation for both United States, and international students, it is unfair to put international students in a situation where they are being tracked and monitored regularly.


Based on the above analysis, feasibility of the SEVP program and SEVIS for universities should be observed. Especially, operational burden to university employees, financial burden to international students, and social problems (stereotyping, unnecessary detention) for international students should be closely observed.


From the perspective of the government, it is evident that the SEVP and SEVIS program should be further fine-tuned. Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated in one their reports that the existing SEVP program and stringent border crossing laws are not applied severely for students who are on Optional Practical Training (OPT), and H1-B work visas. The government thinks those who are involved in US through employment are generally not motivated to do harm to United States. Similarly, one could logically argue how could someone who obtain education in United States is motivated to harm United States? This conflict of logic should be addressed in future.

Further, DHS should clearly state the reason why international students are only focused in relation to terrorist activity (As noted above, with the exception made in FERPA, FBI is primarily focused on international students while they have equal access to US citizens as well), when 80% of the terrorist activities since 9/11 is committed by US citizens and legal residents (12 crimes were reported by foreigners related to terrorism and Jihad activities, where as 346 cases reported by US citizens/residents). There is still a security threat from international students. However, considering the statistics it is not fair to get international students to fund SEVIS. Further, a policy should be implemented to brief students about US education system and SEVP during student orientations. This would at least stop students from getting into trouble while travelling across borders. Most universities do this. However, making it a policy would further eliminate problems.


SEVP program cannot be stopped. However, adding certain amendments to it to at least to take the financial burden on institutions and students, while implementing a policy to orient students to US education would certainly help in the long run. It should be noted that most of the research on improving SEVP are target on improving the system to support the government. Lack of research conducted to support student is a grave issue that should be further addressed.


References


Frostenson, S. (2016) Most Terrorist Attacks in the US are Committed by Americans – not Foreigners, Vox.


Garcia, H, A., Villarreal, M, L. (2014) The “Redirecting” of International Students: American Higher Education Policy Hindrances and Implications, Journal of International Students, 4(2), 126-136.


Govtrack (2001) H.R. 3162 (107th): Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT).


Harris, S. (2003) Foreign Student Tracking System Called Inefficient, Intrusive, Government Executive.


n.d. (2016) 8 CFR 214.3, NAFSA Adviser’s Manual.


Romero, V, C. (2003) Noncitizen Students & Immigration Policy Post-9/11, 17 Geo.Immigr,L.J.357.


Siskin, A. (2005) Monitoring Foreign Students in the United States: The Student & Exchange Visitors Information System (SEVIS), CRS Web.


The City University of New York (n.d.) Best Practice Recommendations Based on the Guidelines, Procedures, & Best Practices on F-1, & J-1 International Students.


Urias, D, A., Yeakey, C, C. (2005) International Students and US Border Security, The NEA Higher Education Journal, 187-198.


US Government Accountability Office (2014) Student & Exchange Visitor Information System: DHS Needs to Assess Risks & Strengthen Oversight of Foreign Students with Employment Authorization, GAO-14-356.


US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (n.d.) Fact Sheet: Continuity Operations Planning for SEVP Approved Schools.


US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (2012) Student & Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) II.


US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (2010) Policy Guidance for: SEVIS Users at SEVP Certified Schools.


Wong, K, C. (2006) Implementing the USA Patriot Act: A Case Study of the Student & Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), BYU Educ. & L.J. 379.