(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000001
ICE.12.2714.000002
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000003
ICE.12.2714.000004
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000005
ICE.12.2714.000006
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000007
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000008
ICE.12.2714.000009
ICE.12.2714.000010
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000011
ICE.12.2714.000012
ICE.12.2714.000013
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000014
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000015
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000016
ICE.12.2714.000017
ICE.12.2714.000018
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000019
(b)(7)e
ICE.12.2714.000020
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000021
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000022
ICE.12.2714.000023
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000024
ICE.12.2714.000025
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000026
ICE.12.2714.000027
ICE.12.2714.000028
ICE.12.2714.000029
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000030
ICE.12.2714.000031
ICE.12.2714.000032
ICE.12.2714.000033
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e (b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000034
ICE.12.2714.000035
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000036
ICE.12.2714.000037
ICE.12.2714.000038
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000039
ICE.12.2714.000040
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000041
ICE.12.2714.000042
ICE.12.2714.000043
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000044
ICE.12.2714.000045
Student and Exchange Visitor Program
U.S. Department of llomeliiml Sccurilj
500 l2lh5ireei.SW
Washington, DC 20(124
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement
2H-
FILE:
OFFICE: STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM
WASHINGTON. DC 20024
IN RE: Petitioner: California University of Management and Sciences
PETITION: Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Students under
section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program in regards to (he filing of Form
[-290B Notice of Appeal. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000046
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000047
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000048
ICE.12.2714.000049
ICE.12.2714.000050
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(k)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000051
ICE.12.2714.000052
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000053
ICE.12.2714.000054
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000055
ICE.12.2714.000056
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000057
ICE.12.2714.000058
ICE.12.2714.000059
ICE.12.2714.000060
ICE.12.2714.000061
ICE.12.2714.000062
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000063
ICE.12.2714.000064
ICE.12.2714.000065
ICE.12.2714.000066
ICE.12.2714.000067
ICE.12.2714.000068
ICE.12.2714.000069
ICE.12.2714.000070
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000071
ICE.12.2714.000072
ICE.12.2714.000073
ICE.12.2714.000074
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000075
ICE.12.2714.000076
ICE.12.2714.000077
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000078
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000079
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000080
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000081
ICE.12.2714.000082
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000083
ICE.12.2714.000084
ICE.12.2714.000085
ICE.12.2714.000086
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000087
ICE.12.2714.000088
ICE.12.2714.000089
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000090
ICE.12.2714.000091
ICE.12.2714.000092
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000093
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000094
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000095
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000096
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000097
ICE.12.2714.000098
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000099
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000100
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000101
ICE.12.2714.000102
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000103
ICE.12.2714.000104
ICE.12.2714.000105
ICE.12.2714.000106
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000107
(b)(7)e (b)(7)e
ICE.12.2714.000108
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000109
ICE.12.2714.000110
ICE.12.2714.000111
ICE.12.2714.000112
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000113
ICE.12.2714.000114
ICE.12.2714.000115
ICE.12.2714.000116
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000117
ICE.12.2714.000118
ICE.12.2714.000119
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000120
ICE.12.2714.000121
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000122
ICE.12.2714.000123
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000124
ICE.12.2714.000125
ICE.12.2714.000126
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000127
ICE.12.2714.000128
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000129
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000130
ICE.12.2714.000131
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000132
ICE.12.2714.000133
ICE.12.2714.000134
ICE.12.2714.000135
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000136
ICE.12.2714.000137
ICE.12.2714.000138
ICE.12.2714.000139
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000140
ICE.12.2714.000141
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000142
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000143
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000144
ICE.12.2714.000145
ICE.12.2714.000146
ICE.12.2714.000147
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000148
ICE.12.2714.000149
ICE.12.2714.000150
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000151
ICE.12.2714.000152
ICE.12.2714.000153
ICE.12.2714.000154
ICE.12.2714.000155
ICE.12.2714.000156
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000157
ICE.12.2714.000158
ICE.12.2714.000159
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000160
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000161
ICE.12.2714.000162
ICE.12.2714.000163
ICE.12.2714.000164
ICE.12.2714.000165
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000166
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000167
ICE.12.2714.000168
ICE.12.2714.000169
ICE.12.2714.000170
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000171
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000172
ICE.12.2714.000173
ICE.12.2714.000174
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000175
ICE.12.2714.000176
ICE.12.2714.000177
ICE.12.2714.000178
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000179
ICE.12.2714.000180
ICE.12.2714.000181
ICE.12.2714.000182
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000183
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000184
ICE.12.2714.000185
ICE.12.2714.000186
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000187
ICE.12.2714.000188
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000189
ICE.12.2714.000190
ICE.12.2714.000191
ICE.12.2714.000192
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000193
ICE.12.2714.000194
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000195
ICE.12.2714.000196
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000197
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000198
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000199
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000200
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000201
ICE.12.2714.000202
ICE.12.2714.000203
ICE.12.2714.000204
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000205
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000206
ICE.12.2714.000207
ICE.12.2714.000208
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000209
ICE.12.2714.000210
ICE.12.2714.000211
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000212
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000213
ICE.12.2714.000214
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000215
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000216
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000217
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000218
ICE.12.2714.000219
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000220
ICE.12.2714.000221
ICE.12.2714.000222
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000223
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000224
ICE.12.2714.000225
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000226
ICE.12.2714.000227
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000228
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000229
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000230
ICE.12.2714.000231
ICE.12.2714.000232
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000233
ICE.12.2714.000234
ICE.12.2714.000235
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000236
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000237
ICE.12.2714.000238
ICE.12.2714.000239
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000240
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000241
ICE.12.2714.000242
ICE.12.2714.000243
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000244
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000245
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000246
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000247
ICE.12.2714.000248
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000249
ICE.12.2714.000250
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000251
ICE.12.2714.000252
ICE.12.2714.000253
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000254
ICE.12.2714.000255
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000256
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000257
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000258
ICE.12.2714.000259
ICE.12.2714.000260
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000261
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000262
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000263
ICE.12.2714.000264
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000265
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000266
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000267
ICE.12.2714.000268
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000269
ICE.12.2714.000270
ICE.12.2714.000271
ICE.12.2714.000272
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000273
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000274
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000275
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000276
ICE.12.2714.000277
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000278
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000279
ICE.12.2714.000280
Student and Exchange Visitor Program
U.S. Depiirlnicnl nf Homeland Sccuril\
500 12'St.SWWashington, DC 20524
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
$■' Enforcement
-4
FILE:
OFFICE: STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM
WASHINGTON, DC 20536
IN RE: Petitioner: JEPPESEN ACADEMY
PETITION: Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student under
section 101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1 i01(a)(15)(M)(i)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program in regards to the filing of Form
I-290B Notice of Appeal. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
www.ice.gov
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000281
JEPPESEN ACADEMY
2 of 5
DISCUSSION: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), School Certification
Branch (SCB), denied petitioner's Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by
Nonimmigrant Student (Form 1-17) on January 8, 2009. Petitioner filed a timely appeal and the
matter is now before the SEVP Appeals Team. The appeal will be remanded to SCB to
request additional evidence related to 8 CFR 214.3(b) and 8 CFR 214.3(c) and for the
petitioner to edit its Form 1-17.
The petition at issue in this proceeding is the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS) Form 1-17 filed by petitioner on April 23, 2008. The Form 1-17 reflects that the
petitioner in this matter, Jeppesen Academy, is a private school established May 1, 2003. The
petitioner's Form 1-17 reflects that the institution offers vocational training for flight dispatch
instruction. The petitioner declares a maximum enrollment of 70 students and 3 instructors. The
petitioner seeks approval for attendance by M-l nonimmigrant students.
The petitioner requested additional time to submit a brief to present additional information
regarding the denial and was granted a thirty day extension. Although the petitioner did not
submit a brief within the time permitted, a brief is not required to file an appeal if the petitioner
has specifically identified on the Form I-290B any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of
fact for the appeal. In this case, the petitioner questions whether the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) approval of its Aircraft Dispatcher Certification Course under 14 Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 65 satisfies the licensing, approval, or accreditation requirement
under8CFR214.3(b).
The SCB denied the petition after finding that the school did not meet the regulatory
requirements found at 8 C.F.R 214.3(b) for licensing, approval, or accreditation.
8 CFR 214.3(b)(2008) Supporting documents, states, in pertinent part:
"Pursuant to sections 101(a)(15) (F) and (M) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, the Service has consulted with the Department of Education
and determined that petitioning institutions must submit certain supporting
documents. ... Any other petitioning school shall submit a certification by the
appropriate licensing, approving, or accrediting official who shall certify that
he or she is authorized to do so to the effect that it is licensed, approved, or
accredited. In lieu of such certification a school which offers courses
recognized by a State-approving agency as appropriate for study for veterans
under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3675 and 3676 may submit a statement of
recognition signed by the appropriate official of the State approving agency
who shall certify that he or she is authorized to do so. ..."
SCB stated in the Notice of Denial that Jeppesen Academy did not provide evidence that the
school is licensed or authorized by the State of Colorado. Jeppesen Academy conceded in its
statement on appeal that the school was not approved by the Colorado Department of Higher
Education.
www.ice.govICE.12.2714.000282
JEPPESEN ACADEMY
3 of 5
On appeal, the petitioner states, "In the interim Jeppesen inquired with the FAA who explained
that in their opinion we should be able to use their Federal approval (Jeppesen is currently an
approved school via 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 65). We were also told that several of
our competitors were approved in [the] past by SEVIS and currently issuing 1-20's, who used
Federal approval and not approval from their state/s." The petitioner is advised that each Form I-
17 petition is adjudicated independently and on its own merit, including the evidence submitted
with the petition.
During the adjudication of the initial Form 1-17, Jeppesen Academy submitted email
correspondence regarding the school's licensing situation and as to whether the school would
qualify for an exemption from the state of Colorado. The correspondence was between
Manager, CMA Training Deployment, Jeppesen Academy, and the Director of the
Division of Private Occupational Schools, Colorado Department of Higher Education. The
correspondence between and the Colorado Department of Higher Education
indicated that Jeppesen Academy would not qualify for an exemption. However, in one of the
emails, dated September 11, 2008, stated that "The Jeppesen FAA Dispatcher
Certification Course is approved by the Colorado State Approving Agency for the training of
Veterans and eligible dependents, and also approved by the Colorado Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation."
The regulations at 8 CFR 214.3(b) state that a school shall submit a certification by the
appropriate licensing, approving, or accrediting official who shall certify that he or she is
authorized to do so to the effect that it is licensed, approved, or accredited or in lieu of such
certification, a school which offers courses recognized by a State-approving agency as
appropriate for study for veterans under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3675 and 3676, may submit
a statement of recognition signed by the appropriate official of the State approving agency who
shall certify that he or she is authorized to do so. Jeppesen Academy, in the September 11, 2008
email provided to SCB, implied that its FAA Dispatcher Certification Course was approved by
the Colorado State approving agency for the training of veterans. This section of the regulation
at 8 CFR 214.3(b) is satisfied if the school offers courses recognized by a state approving agency
as appropriate for the study of veterans and can provide a statement of recognition signed by the
authorized official of that state-approving agency to SEVP. Guidance found on the SEVP web
page for "How to Prepare for a Site Visit" in the section entitled State
Licensure/Registration/Proof of Exemption reiterates "If the State in which the school is located
does not require registration or license, the school must obtain Proof of Exemption from the
State's Department of Education. However, if the school is approved by the state for veterans
study, this is acceptable in lieu of state license/registration. Private school affidavits meet the
requirements of state licensure."
The record indicates that SCB did not issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) to the school after
SCB was made aware of this representation in the email record provided to them by Jeppesen
Academy. Since the school was not afforded the opportunity to prove it was recognized by the
state as appropriate for study for veterans, we find that SCB should have permitted the school to
demonstrate compliance with 8 CFR 214.3(b) by allowing the school to submit a statement from
the appropriate state official.
www.ice.gov
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000283
JEPPESEN ACADEMY
4 of 5
Therefore, we direct SCB to issue an RFE to Jeppesen Academy allowing the school to provide a
statement from the appropriate official at the State-approving agency that the school's courses
are recognized by the State-approving agency for study for veterans under the provisions of 38
U.S.C. 3675 and 3676 to satisfy the requirement under 8 CFR 214.3(b).
Several discrepancies are also noted with the record. During the adjudication of the school's
Form 1-17, SCB did not receive nor request other evidence required to determine if the school
met the SEVP regulatory requirements for a vocational school. The record indicates the absence
of evidence related to the school's finances and the salaries of the teachers (both required under 8
CFR 214.3(b)); and evidence that Jeppesen Academy's courses of study are accepted as fulfilling
the requirements for the attainment of an educational, professional, or vocational objective, and
are not avocational or recreational in character (required under 8 CFR 214.3(c)). It is also noted
that the record, specifically page 1-6 of the Dispatch Training Certification Manual, states that
Jeppesen Academy will deliver its courses in a variety of facilities. However, the Form 1-17
indicates that there is only one location for which Jeppesen Academy is seeking SEVP-
certification and where courses will be taught (the location in Englewood, Colorado).
8 CFR 214.3(b)(2008), Supporting documents, states, in pertinent part:
"Pursuant to sections 101(a)(15) (F) and (M) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, the Service has consulted with the Department of Education
and determined that petitioning institutions must submit certain supporting
documents. ... If not included in the catalogue, or if a catalogue is not issued,
the school shall furnish a written statement containing information concerning
the size of its physical plant, nature of its facilities for study and training,
educational, vocational or professional qualifications of the teaching staff,
salaries of the teachers, attendance and scholastic grading policy, amount and
character of supervisory and consultative services available to students and
trainees, and finances (including a certified copy of the accountant's last
statement of school's net worth, income, and expenses...."
8 CFR 214.3(c)(2008), Other evidence, states, in pertinent part:
"The Service has also consulted with the Department of Education regarding
the following types of institutions and determined that they must submit
additional evidence. If the petitioner is a vocational, business, or language
school, or American institution of research recognized as such by the Attorney
General, it must submit evidence that its courses of study are accepted as
fulfilling the requirements for the attainment of an educational, professional,
or vocational objective, and are not avocational or recreational in character.
Thereby, SCB, in addition to requesting that Jeppesen Academy provide a statement from the
appropriate official at a State-approving agency that the school's courses are recognized by the
State-approving agency for study for veterans under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3675 and 3676,
is also directed to request that the school provide a certified copy of the accountant's last
www.ice.govICE.12.2714.000284
JEPPESEN ACADEMY
5 of5
statement of school's net worth, income, and expenses, as well as a statement providing the
teachers' salaries. SCB should also request evidence that Jeppesen Academy's courses of study
are accepted as fulfilling the requirements for the attainment of an educational, professional, or
vocational objective, and are not avocational or recreational in character. All evidence requested
by SCB should relate to the time period when Jeppesen Academy initially applied for SEVIS
certification. Lastly, SCB is directed to request that the school edit Section 4 (Data Field # 5) of
the Form 1-17 petition to show that the school is a private institution rather than a public
institution and to request that the Petitioner identify any additional locations where instruction
will be provided to nonimmigrant students. The Petitioner is advised that other locations, other
than the Englewood, Colorado location identified on its Form 1-17 petition, may require a
separate petition and/or additional site visits.
Additionally, the Petitioner is advised to clarify any and all advertising (including the references
to "Visa Assistance" on its website) to show that Jeppesen Academy is currently not certified nor
has been certified in the past to accept nonimmigrant students to its programs.
CONCLUSION: SCB determined that Jeppesen Academy did not satisfy the requirements for
licensing, approval, or accreditation under 8 CFR 214.3(b). However, SCB did not permit the
school to demonstrate that it met the "in lieu of requirement under 8 CFR 214.3(b) that its
courses are recognized by a State-approving agency as appropriate for study for veterans under
the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3675 and 3676 by submitting a statement of recognition signed by
the appropriate official of the State-approving agency who shall certify that he or she is
authorized to do so, despite reference to its approval for study by veterans in email
correspondence provided to SCB during initial adjudication of the school's Form 1-17. The
school was also not provided a complete and sufficient RFE requesting all required evidence
associated with evaluating the school's Form 1-17 petition for approval as a vocational school.
As such, we are remanding the petition to SCB in order to request the school provide the
appropriate statement of recognition from the State-approving agency for veterans, as well as the
missing evidence that should have been collected and evaluated during the adjudication of the
Form 1-17, and to request that the school edit Field 5 on its Form 1-17 petition.
ORDER: The appeal is remanded to SCB to request evidence associated with 8 CFR 214.3(b)
and 8 CFR 214.3(c) and to edit the Form 1-17 as directed in the appeal decision.
www.ice.govICE.12.2714.000285
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000286
ICE.12.2714.000287
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000288
ICE.12.2714.000289
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000290
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000291
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000292
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000293
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000294
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000295
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000296
Student and Exchange I isitor Program
ILS. Di;|):iriMii'nt uf Homeland Security
Sfffl 12* Street, SWWaahinglon, DC 20536
^ U.S. Immigrationand Customs
^SSeT''' Enforcement
MAY - 4
FILE:
OFFICE: STUDENT AND EXCIIANGE VISITOR PROGRAM
WASHINGTON, DC 20536
IN RE: Petitioner: MASTER'S COMMISSION WASILLA ALASKA
PETITION: I'ctition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student under
section I01(a)(15)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §110l(a)(15)(M)(i)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program in regards to the filing of Form
I-290B Notice of Appeal. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
www.ice.gov
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000297
MASTER'S COMMISSION WASILLA ALASKA
2 of4
DISCUSSION: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), School Certification
Branch (SCB), denied petitioner's Petition for Approval of School for attendance by
Nonimmigrant Student (Form 1-17) on July 3, 2008. The petitioner timely appealed. The SEVP
Appeals Team (SAT) dismisses the appeal for the reasons set forth.
The petition at issue in this proceeding is the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS) Form 1-17 filed by petitioner on February 25, 2008. The Form 1-17 reflects that the
petitioner in this matter, Master's Commission Wasilla Alaska, (MCWA) is a private school
established September 11, 2005. The petitioner offers ministerial training, and declares a
maximum enrollment of 12 students and 5 instructors as noted on the Form 1-17. Petitioner
seeks approval for attendance by M-l nonimmigrant vocational students. SCB denied
petitioner's initial application. There is no evidence that MCWA has ever been approved for
attendance by nonimmigrant students.
The SCB denied the petition after finding that the petitioner did not meet Federal Regulation 8
C.F.R §214.2(m)(9). This sections states:
(iii) Study in a vocational or other nonacademic curriculum, other than in a
language training program except as provided in §214.3(a)(2)(iv), certified by a
designated school official to consist of at least eighteen clock hours of attendance
a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of classroom
instruction, or at least twenty-two clock hours a week if the dominant part of the
course of study consists of shop or laboratory work.
The SCB held that MCWA failed to meet the regulation cited after finding that the dominant
portion of the school's program consisted of fewer than eighteen hours of classroom instruction
per week for each program the MCWA sought SEVP approval. On April 4, 2008, the SCB
requested information pertaining to each course the petitioner sought to certify. The Request for
Evidence (RFE) specifically stated, "Please provide...(3) A statement listing each program of
which you are seeking approval and outlining instruction hours per week (classroom, internship,
and lab hours should be separate) and the number of weeks it takes the student to complete the
program/s". The petitioner's evidence submitted in response did not satisfy the above regulatory
requirement.
On appeal, the petitioner only sought to clarify the hours for one of its programs and states in a
letter dated July 14, 2008, "Under the section that describes 'Berean School of the Bible 9
months,' It is stated that all classes are correspondence. It is stated that classes are held from
Tuesday-Friday from 10AM -12PM, with additional class times being held on Saturday's and
Monday's at each student's independent pace of study." The petitioner continues to state, "The
appeal is based on the fact that all of the instruction is correspondence and that the 8 hours per
week of classroom time that is stated in the document is that portion of the student's instruction
times that are directly supervised by the school staff."
The SAT finds the petitioner's statement contradictory. The petitioner states that the Berean
School of Bible classes held Saturday and Monday are correspondence and students work at an
independent pace of study. The petitioner also states that the remainder of class time per week,
www.ice.govICE.12.2714.000298
MASTER'S COMMISSION WASILLA ALASKA
3 of4
10:00am-12:00pm Tuesday-Friday, is supervised by school staff. The SAT cannot make a
determination of the type of coursework taught on Saturday and Monday based on the
information provided by the petitioner.
The SCB requested that the petitioner submit additional information when it sent the petitioner
the RFE to clarify the type of instruction hours per week, indicating classroom, internship, and
lab hours. Specifically, the RFE stated, "(Submit) A statement listing each program of which
you are seeking approval and outlining instruction hours per week (classroom, internship, and
lab hours should be separate)". However, the petitioner failed to clearly present that information
for each program. The petitioner received further notification of the lack of program explanation
in the Notice of Denial. Upon appeal, the petitioner once more failed to provide adequate
explanation as to course content.
Based on the information contained within the Record of Proceeding (ROP), the SAT was able to
determine that first year students attend twelve hours of class each week, an amount falling short
of that which is required in the regulation above. The evidence contained within the ROP
provides the following course detail:
ICI Training, primarily consisting of independent study for six months, where students attend
one half-hour of classroom instruction per week. The Berean School of the Bible course lasting
nine months of the school calendar year offers eight hours of classroom instruction per week.
Individual Bible Training, spanning nine months, offers eighty minutes of classroom instruction
per week. Additionally, students are required to participate in a Community Service project
spending one hour per week at a local high school, and one hour a week at a local Senior Center.
Finally, as part of the school year, students participate in Rural Alaska Cross Cultural Ministry
Training. Preparation for this training requires that the students participate in fifteen hours of
classroom instruction prior to taking two one week trips. While field trips can be considered
laboratory hours, in this case, cross cultural ministry training hours do not count because students
do not participate in this portion of the program on a weekly basis.
The petitioner included classroom instruction hours for 2nd and 3rd year students forconsideration in the calculation of clock hours. However, these classroom hours cannot be
considered as they go beyond the one year course of study permitted by schools seeking to issue
Form I-20s to vocational students. 8 C.F.R. §214.2(m)(5)states:
(5) Period of stay. A student in M nonimmigrant status is admitted for a fixed
time period, which is the period necessary to complete the course of study
indicated on the Form 1-20, plus practical training following completion of the
course of study, plus an additional 30 days to depart the United States, but not to
exceed a total period of one year. An M-l student may be admitted for a period
up to 30 days before the report date or start date of the course of study listed on
the Form 1-20.
MCWA applied for Certification as a school seeking to issue M-l Form I-20s. The SEVP cannot
consider 2nd and 3rd year course work as those years are outside the duration of study for an M-lnonimmigrant student. As such, the clock hours during the 2nd and 3rd year course of study couldnot be calculated in determining the clock hours of attendance for 1st year students.
www.ice.govICE.12.2714.000299
MASTER'S COMMISSION WASILLA ALASKA
4 of 4
8 C.F.R §214.2(m)(9)(iii) stales that in order for a program of study lo become SEVP-certificd it
must offer students a minimum number of "clock hours of attendance" where the program
primarily consists of "classroom instruction". Based on the information provided within the
ROP and the appellate brief, the MCWA only provides twelve hours of classroom instruction for
first year students. The U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences.
National Center lor Education Statistics found at http://nccs.cd.jjov/puhs2003/2003419h.pdf has
provided a glossary of terms and defines class as:
A setting in which organized instruction of course content is provided to one or
more students (including cross-age groupings) for a given period of time. (A
course may be offered lo more than one class.) Instruction, provided by one or
more teachers or other staff members, may be delivered in person or via a
different medium...
Time spent on Saturday and Monday in independent study for the Berean School of the Bible
class cannot be included within the number of reported classroom hours because the petitioner
failed to clarify the type of instruction the students receive. Overall, the evidence submitted by
the petitioner fails to clearly clarify the number of classroom hours, lab hours, internship hours
spent and other instruction time required for each nonimmigrant student per week for each
course. The petitioner received notice of this issue by the SCB in the RFE and the Notice of
Denial, but failed to submit the requisite information.
CONCLUSION: The Appeal for SEVP-certification for the Master's Commission Wasilla
Alaska fails to meet the Federal Regulations. Specifically, the MCWA fails to meet the clock
hour requirement for full course of study as required by the regulations.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
www.ice.govICE.12.2714.000300
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000301
ICE.12.2714.000302
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000303
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000304
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000305
ICE.12.2714.000306
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000307
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000308
ICE.12.2714.000309
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000310
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000311
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000312
ICE.12.2714.000313
ICE.12.2714.000314
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000315
ICE.12.2714.000316
ICE.12.2714.000317
ICE.12.2714.000318
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000319
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000320
ICE.12.2714.000321
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000322
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000323
ICE.12.2714.000324
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000325
ICE.12.2714.000326
ICE.12.2714.000327
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000328
ICE.12.2714.000329
ICE.12.2714.000330
Student inn! Exchange I Tsiior Pragfarn
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
511(1 12"1 Sired, SW
Washington DC 2002-1
U.S. Immigration
and CustomsEnforcement
amp -i m
FILE:
OFFICE: STUDENT AND EXCI1ANGE VISITOR PROGRAM
SEVP APPEALS UNIT
WASHINGTON, DC 20536
IN RE: PETITIONER: WORLD CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
PETITION: Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student under
section I0t(a)(15)(F)(i)ofthe Immigration and Nationality Aet, 8 U.S.C. §1101fa)(15)(F)(i)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program in regards to the filing of Form
1-290B Notice of Appeal. Any further inquiry must be made lo thai office.
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000331
WORLD CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
2 of4
DISCUSSION: On July 23, 2007, World Christian Theological University (University)
submitted a petition update requesting approval to add the Intensive English Program to the
Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) approved programs. The School Certification
Branch (SCB) sent the University a request for evidence (RFE) outlining the evidence required
to approve the Intensive English Program. The SCB requested that the school submit the
requested evidence by October 24, 2007. According to the record of proceeding (ROP), the
University submitted the requested documents, which were received on August 27, 2007, but the
petition update was not adjudicated. The SCB issued a Notice of Intent to Withdraw (NOIW) on
November 28, 2007, to the petitioner's institution. After the University submitted evidence in
response to the NOIW, SCB issued a Withdrawal on Notice (WON) on January 14, 2008. The
SEVP Appeals Team (SAT), upon review of the appeal and ROP, reverses the SCB's
withdrawal and reinstates certification.
The SCB NOIW cites two violations under 8 CFR 214.4(a)(l): (xi) Failure to operate as a bona
fide school; and (xvii) Failure to comply with the procedure for issuance of the Form 1-20 set
forth in 8 CFR 214.3(k). The WON discussed the first issue of failure to operate as a bona fide
school as grounds for withdrawal, but failed to discuss evidence and findings as to the second
matter, therefore, SAT will not address the failure to comply with the procedure for issuance of
the Form 1-20. Per 8 C.F.R. 214.4(g) "The decision of the district director shall be in writing and
shall include a discussion of the evidence and findings as to withdrawal." Because no evidence
was discussed in the WON regarding the school's failure to comply with the procedure for
issuance of the Form 1-20, withdrawal on this basis cannot be substantiated.
The NOIW set forth evidence requested by the SCB to demonstrate that the school is eligible for
continued certification:
(1) Evidence the PDSO and all DSOs are US citizens or lawful permanent
residents ... (2) A statement identifying the principal duties of all P/DSOs ... (3)
Original letters from three (3) different accredited schools attesting they have
accepted, and continue to accept unconditionally, credits from your school ... (4)
In lieu of letters stated above, Articulation Agreements and/or employment letters
... (5) A certified/signed copy of an accountant's last statement of the school's net
worth, income, and expenses. (6) A statement containing information on
educational, vocational, or professional qualifications of the teaching staff (by
name), salaries of the teachers ... (7) Evidence that the Intensive English Program
[is] approved by your state ... (8) [W]ritten representations under oath supported
by documentary evidence setting forth reasons why SEVP should not withdraw
your school's approval.
In response to the NOIW, the University presented the following information: a photo copy of
Alien Resident Card, a PDSO/DSO statement, two letters from
universities, two letters from employers, teaching staff qualifications and salaries, and a
statement explaining why it should not be withdrawn from certification.
In reference to the financial statement requested by the SCB, the University's response to the
NOIW requested additional time to submit the statement. The University did submit a financial
www.ice.gov
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000332
WORLD CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
3 of 4
statement after the deadline had lapsed, but due to the sometimes cumbersome process of
obtaining an up-to-date prepared financial statement, the request for additional time was
reasonable. The financial statement submitted upon appeal will be accepted as sufficient
clarifying evidence fulfilling evidentiary requirements as requested.
In reference to the evidence of state approval requested by SCB, according to the Bureau of
Private Postsecondary & Vocational Education (BPPVE), now the Bureau for Private
Postsecondary Education, the law that governed these matters at the time of the appeal was
California AB 1525, Section (l)(b)(l) (2007), which states:
Each mater pending before the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational
Education as of the close of business on June 30,2007, shall be deemed to remain
pending before the bureau or a successor agency as of February 1, 2008,
irrespective of any applicable deadlines. With respect to any deadline applicable
to a pending matter, no time shall be deemed to have elapsed between July 1,
2007, and January 31, 2008, inclusive.
There is evidence in the ROP that the University filed a petition for approval of the Intensive
English Program with the BBPVE in June 2007, which was deemed to remain pending at the
time of withdrawal per California AB 1525, Section (l)(b)(l) (2007).
Upon review of the information submitted, the SCB issued a WON on January 14,2008.
The SAT finds that the main issue concerning the withdrawal of the University's SEVP-
certification is whether the University operates as a bona fide institution.
The NOIW cites 214.4 (a)(l)(xi), failure to operate as a bona fide institution of learning. The
SCB states in the NOIW, under issue one:
In order to substantiate its petition for SEVIS certification, the school was
required to submit letters from accredited institutions verifying that they would
accept transfer credits from WCTU. The submitted letters were from
unaccredited schools...These letters are insufficient to meet the eligibility
requirements for continued approval.
In this case, the University is a seminary. The SCB certified the University according to SEVP
policy, which can be found in the document entitled "SEVP FACT SHEET - Documents
Accepted in Lieu of Accreditation" found at http://www.ice.gov/sevis/. Specifically, SEVP
policy states:
A seminary is a higher education institution and as such must meet the
requirements for an unaccredited higher education institution...However, most
seminarians finish their education at the institution/seminary and devote their
lives to a religious vocation and work in places of worship as priests, ministers,
rabbis, etc. Very few seminary students ever transfer to other institutions of higher
education prior to completion of their program of study. This reality poses great
difficulties for seminaries to meet the documentary requirements set forth in 8
www.ice.govICE.12.2714.000333
WORLD CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
4 of4
CFR 214.3 for a traditional institution of higher education that is unaccredited.
SEVP acknowledges the uniqueness of seminaries and has established a policy to
accept letters from higher education, articulation agreements, employment letters,
or a combination thereof, to meet the aforementioned requirements for
participation in the Program.
The SCB Adjudicator, in an email to the school dated July 3, 2006, stated, "SEVP acknowledges
the uniqueness of seminaries and has established a policy to accept letters from higher education,
articulation agreements, employment letters, or a combination thereof, to meet the
aforementioned requirements for participation in the Program." The SCB accepted three letters
of employment meeting the policy guidelines outlined by the SCB, resulting in the University's
SEVP certification.
During the response to the NOIW the University submitted employment letters verifying
graduates from the University worked at various religious entities in capacities related to their
field of study. Specifically, the NOIW yielded letters from the Santa Clarita Korean Church, the
Korean Christian Church, and a letter from World Mission University. The NOIW stated that it
would accept employment letters as well as articulation agreements. The letters submitted by the
University were not accompanied by student transcripts, however, this was not requested by SCB
in the NOIW. The NOIW requested in number three that student transcripts be provided if the
school selected to provide letters from three different accredited schools attesting they have
accepted and continue to accept unconditionally credits from the University.
We find that the evidence provided in support of World Christian Theological University upon
initial certification and upon NOIW does not merit withdrawal based on the regulations at 8
C.F.R.214.4(a)(l)(xi).
CONCLUSION: The SCB determined that the University improperly issued Forms 1-20 to
students pursing an English language program, however no evidence or findings were presented
in the WON, therefore, it may not be used as grounds for withdrawal. The SCB also found that
the University failed to operate as a bona fide academic institution, but SAT found that the
evidence presented upon initial certification and in response to the NOIW did not merit
withdrawal under 8 C.F.R. 214.4(a)(l)(xi).
ORDER: The withdrawal is reversed. We, hereby, remand this decision to the SCB and direct
that SEVP certification be reinstated immediately for World Christian Theological University.
www.ice.govICE.12.2714.000334
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000335
ICE.12.2714.000336
ICE.12.2714.000337
ICE.12.2714.000338
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000339
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000340
ICE.12.2714.000341
ICE.12.2714.000342
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000343
ICE.12.2714.000344
ICE.12.2714.000345
ICE.12.2714.000346
ICE.12.2714.000347
ICE.12.2714.000348
ICE.12.2714.000349
ICE.12.2714.000350
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000351
ICE.12.2714.000352
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000353
ICE.12.2714.000354
ICE.12.2714.000355
ICE.12.2714.000356
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000357
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000358
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000359
ICE.12.2714.000360
ICE.12.2714.000361
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000362
ICE.12.2714.000363
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000364
ICE.12.2714.000365
ICE.12.2714.000366
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000367
ICE.12.2714.000368
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000369
ICE.12.2714.000370
ICE.12.2714.000371
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000372
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000373
ICE.12.2714.000374
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000375
ICE.12.2714.000376
ICE.12.2714.000377
ICE.12.2714.000378
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000379
ICE.12.2714.000380
ICE.12.2714.000381
Sluderu ami Exchange I 'isitor Program
(IS. Department gf llnnii'hiiiil Security
5(10 I2lli 8tre«, SW Slop 5600
Washington, DC 2O53S-56QQ
^. U.S. Immigration
j and Customs
Enforcement
APR 1 9 2011
FILE:
OFFICE: STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM
WASHINGTON, DC 20536
IN RE: Petitioner: CHANNEL ISLANDS AVIATION
PETITION: Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Students under
section 101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRKSENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program in regards to the filing of Form
I-290B Notice of Appeal. Aiw further inquiry must be made to that office.
www.ice.gov
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000382
CHANNEL ISLANDS AVIATION
Page 2 of3
DISCUSSION: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), School Certification
Branch (SCB), denied petitioner's Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by
Nonimmigrant Student (Form 1-17) on January 24, 2011. The school had previously been denied
SEVP certification in 2007. The matter is now before the SEVP Appeals Team (SAT). The
appeal will be summarily dismissed and this document considered the Notice of
Ineligibility.
The petition at issue in this proceeding is the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS) Form 1-17 filed on January 21, 2010. The Form 1-17 reflects that the petitioner in this
matter, Channel Islands Aviation, is a private institution established on May 18, 1976. The
petitioner offers courses in flight training, employs 12 instructors, and declares an enrollment of
100 students. The petitioner seeks approval for attendance by M-l nonimmigrant vocational
students. There is no evidence that the petitioner has ever been approved for attendance by
nonimmigrant academic or vocational students in the past.
SCB denied the petitioner's Form 1-17 petition (Notice of Denial) because the petitioner did not
submit evidence of a full course of study, as required under 8 CFR 214.2(m)(9)(iii).
8 CFR 2l4.2(m)(9), Full course ofstudy states, in pertinent part:
Successful completion of the course of study must lead to the attainment of a
specific educational or vocational objective. A "full course of study" as required
by section 101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the Act means - ... (iii) Study in a vocational or
other nonacademic curriculum, other than in a language training program except
as provided in § 214.3(a)(2)(iv), certified by a designated school official to consist
of at least eighteen clock hours of attendance a week if the dominant part of the
course of study consists of classroom instruction, or at least twenty-two clock
hours a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of shop or
laboratory work;...
On appeal, in a statement included with the Form I-290B, the petitioner stated:
We have corrected the flight hour worksheet to reflect a full time training
program for foreign students that exceeds the twenty-two clock hours per week
minimum. The hours previously submitted were reflecting a part-time student
which was an oversight on our part as all foreign students will train full time.
We would like to correct form 1-17, field 16 but are unable to do so in the online
system. We have called numerous times to remedy this but were unable to do so.
We would like to correct this issue immediately once we are again allowed into
the system.
In order to overcome SCB's determination of ineligibility, the petitioner must demonstrate that it
was, in fact, eligible for SEVP certification at the time at the time offiling its original petition
(Form 1-17). See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(l) and (b)(12). Petitioner, by its own admission, stated on
ICE.12.2714.000383
CHANNEL ISLANDS AVIATION
Page 3 of3
appeal that it was correcting its flight hour worksheet to reflect a full time training program for
foreign students. The petitioner submitted revised Record of Flight School Weekly Component
worksheets with its appeal. Therefore, Channel Islands Aviation did not fulfill the requirements
for certification at the time offiling its original petition, as required.
Pursuant to 8 CFR 103.3(a)(l)(v), the appeal petition must specifically identify any erroneous
conclusion of law or statement of fact.
8 CFR 103.3(a)(l)(v), Summary dismissal, states, in pertinent part: "An officer to whom
an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal."
Petitioner has failed to identify in its appeal any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact
in SCB's decision. As such, the appeal must be summarily dismissed.
CONCLUSION: On appeal, the petitioner has not identified any erroneous conclusion of
law or statement of fact in SCB's Notice of Denial decision, as required by 8 CFR
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.
ICE.12.2714.000384
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000385
CHINESE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Page 2 of 11
DISCUSSION: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), School Certification
Branch (SCB), denied petitioner's Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by
Nonimmigrant Student (Form 1-17) on April 28, 2011. The matter is now before the SEVP
Appeals Team (SAT). The appeal will be dismissed and this document considered the
Notice of Ineligibility.
The petition at issue in this proceeding is the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS) Form 1-17 electronically filed on May 15, 2010. The Form 1-17 reflects that the
petitioner in this matter, Chinese International Theological Seminary (CITS), is a private
institution established in 2008. The petitioner offers instruction in higher education and religious
studies, employs 6 instructors, and declares an enrollment of 30 students. The petitioner seeks
approval for attendance by F-l nonimmigrant academic students. There is no evidence that the
petitioner has ever been approved for attendance by nonimmigrant academic or vocational
students in the past.
SCB found that CITS did not provide evidence that the school is authorized to operate in the
state in which it resides nor did the school submit evidence that it is exempt from such licensing.
The Notice of Denial stated that during initial adjudication, "the petitioning school provided a
statement indicating that the petitioning school is 'fully incorporated under the Federal and state
Regulations. We received a license with the City of El Monte.'" SEVP requires that an
institution submit evidence that it is authorized to operate in the state in which the school resides
or present proof of exemption from the licensing requirements. SCB determined that under
California state regulations, a postsecondary school must be registered with the state. SCB found
the evidence of licensure from the City of El Monte, submitted during initial adjudication, did
not fulfill the requirements for certification under 8 CFR 214.3(c). [In its Notice of Denial, SCB
cited the incorrect regulation pursuant to licensing or approval. The correct regulation pertainingto licensing, approval, or accreditation is 8 CFR 214.3(b).]
8 CFR 214.3(b) Supporting documents, states, in pertinent part:
Institutions petitioning for certification or recertification must submit certain
supporting documents as follows, pursuant to sections 101(a)(15)(F) and (M) of
the Act. ... Any other petitioning school shall submit a certification by the
appropriate licensing, approving, or accrediting official who shall certify that he
or she is authorized to do so to the effect that it is licensed, approved, oraccredited....
8 CFR 214.3(a)(3) Eligibility, states, in pertinent part:
(i) The petitioner, to be eligible for certification, must establish at the time offiling that it:
(A) Is a bona fide school;
(B) Is an established institution of learning or other recognized place of study;
ICE.12.2714.000386
CHINESE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Page 3 of 11
(C) Possesses the necessary facilities, personnel, and finances to conduct
instruction in recognized courses; and
(D) Is, in fact, engaged in instruction in those courses.
The appropriate licensing authority for a private postsecondary institution in the state of
California is the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (CBPPE). The former
licensing body under the California Department of Consumer Affairs, the Bureau for Private
Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE), ceased operations on June 30, 2007. The
California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 reinstituted the state approval body for
postsecondary private education on January 1, 2010. Applications for school approval became
available from the CBPPE on February 1, 2010. Institutions that had not been previously
approved by the BPPVE were given until August 2,2010 to file an application with the CBPPE.
CITS, according to its Form 1-17 petition, is an unaccredited institution; therefore it must present
evidence of licensure or approval as required by 8 CFR 214.30}). CITS did not provide evidence
(in its name) that it had been approved by the former BPPVE or any other accrediting body with
its petition. The only proof of licensing submitted by the petitioner in the name of the petitioning
institution was a business license from the City of El Monte, California. SAT concurs with SCB
that the City of El Monte Business License submitted as evidence of licensing is not acceptable
evidence under 8 CFR 214.3(b).
The petitioner stated on appeal that the BPPVE was "defunct at the time" the school was
established. The record shows that CITS was established in June 2008. However, the school
filed its Form 1-17 petition on May 15, 2010, subsequent to the date on which the CBPPE was
reestablished.
As the burden of proof falls on the petitioner for establishing eligibility for SEVP certification,
the petitioner must provide the appropriate evidence satisfying the SEVP regulations pursuant to
8 CFR 103.2(b)(l). (See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(l).) At the time CITS filed its Form 1-17 petition
(May 15, 2010), the regulations governing approval of postsecondary institutions in the state of
California were back in effect.
A site visit to the petitioner's school was conducted on June 23, 2010. The site visit report
indicated that CITS and the International Theological Seminary (ITS), another institution of
religious and higher education in El Monte, California, had a "parent child relationship" but no
documentation was provided at that time substantiating the petitioner's claim.
On July 29, 2010, SCB sent the school a Request of Evidence (RFE), that requested, among
other items: "7) A copy of evidence the school is authorized to operate in the state or evidence
the school is exempt from having to be licensed or authorized to operate." As part of the
response to the RFE (received by SCB on October 28, 2010), the petitioner stated "CITS is fully
incorporated under the Federal and State Regulations and is exempt for tax purposes. We have
received a business license with the City of El Monte. When the school started, California
BPPVE (Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education) was defunct for lack of
budget. We intent to file with the bureau when BPPVE is revived." With this statement, CITS
ICE.12.2714.000387
CHINESE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Page 4 of 11
also submitted a copy of the El Monte business license as proof of licensing. As previouslystated, SAT finds the proof of licensing submitted by the petitioner is not acceptable evidenceunder 8 CFR 214.3(b).
As part of its response, the petitioner also submitted a statement from ITS (referred to as an
"affidavit" by the petitioner) clarifying its relationship with CITS as "One diploma, two
organizations". The document was dated October 12, 2010 and signed by
President and acknowledged by Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Thestatement, submitted on ITS letterhead stationery, states:
The undersigned, President of the International Theological Seminary
(ITS), hereby certifies that upon a special arrangement made by the Board of
Trustees of the International Theological Seminary, The Chinese International
Theological Seminary (CITS) is chartered to continue develop Chinese language
theological program toward an independent operation of its own within 3 yearsfrom June 2008.
During this time, operate under the auspicious of ITS, ITS shall extend its
INS, ATS, and ATA accreditation privileges to CITS. Besides, ITS will credit all
courses taken by students at CITS as it is operated strictly under ITS regulations
and has handed over all its files to ITS.
It is within such understanding this letter is written to accommodate CITS
application to INS for 1-20 authorization and to ATA and ATS' accreditation
process to its completion and materialization. In other words, CITS' application
has ITS' full endorsement.
SAT notes that evidence in the record contradicts information provided in the affidavit (dated
October 12, 2010). First, was identified as the ITS Chairman of the Board
of Trustees in the affidavit and in the ITS 2010 Commencement Program (Program) as
Chairman. However, the ITS 2008 - 2010 Catalog (Catalog) identifies the
as the ITS Chairman of the Board of Trustees while listing as professor emeritus andboard member.
Additionally, , who signed the affidavit as President of ITS, is identified in theCatalog as a professor and in the Program as ITS Vice President.
The petitioner also submitted a BPPVE approval document for ITS with its RFE response. The
document shows that ITS was granted BPPVE approval on January 1, 1991 for five programs of
study. (ITS is currently an SEVP-approved institution, having received its certification in 2003.)The BPPVE Approved/Registered Program List document indicates no affiliation with CITS in
its approval of ITS and is solely in the name of ITS. Additionally, the BPPVE document
indicates that the two institutions are not located at the same address; the address shown on the
document for ITS is 3215-3225 N. Tyler Avenue in El Monte, California, while the CITS Form
1-17 shows that CITS is located at 3041 Peck Road in El Monte.
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000388
CHINESE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARYPage 5 of 11
The petitioner's October 28, 2010 RFE response to the licensing request also included:
1. A State of California Secretary of State "Statement of Information" for CITS showing theindividual ownership ofCITS.
2. Copies of the Asia Theological Association (ATA) and the Association of TheologicalSchool (ATS) certifications for ITS.
3. A statement from the petitioner in a document entitled "Doc 0 - Relation between Two
Schools, ITS and CITS" that said: "ITS is chartered under Federal and State Regulations and
currently a school issuing 1-20 under the guidance and in accordance of INS regulations;
School ID number with SEVIS: "
Each of the documents and statements listed above refer solely to either ITS or CITS and do not
indicate any association or shared approvals between the ITS and CITS entities.
The petitioner contends on appeal:
1) In our application, we did indicate that this institution is founded on the basis
of splitting the originally INS approved institution to concentrate on Chinese
segment of the ministry by virtue of the Resolution made by ITS Board of
Trustees in June of2008. We were ready to apply for California BPPVE approval
by ourselves, nevertheless BPPVE was in defunct at the time. 2) We did inform
that since BPPVE was defunct at the time of CITS inception, we had no
way of applying for such approval. She said she was aware of this and did not
require us to do anything for the time being.
The petitioner further states on appeal:
We also informed that CITS was operating under ITS licenses,
according to the agreement between these two schools; and we plan to separate
into two entities in three years. During this period CITS agreed to share all
documentation with, and on behalf of CITS, as the former recognizes the latter of
the direction and progressive nature toward a separate entity. ITS was duly
approved by BPPVE of California before BPPVE ceased to operate and the
license eventually expired, which was then duly renewed. Recently, ITS received
its renewal documentations when BPPE replaced and resumed the functions of
BPPVE. (Enclosed please find copy ofproof for ITS.)
On appeal, in addition to the statements above, the petitioner re-submitted a copy of the ITS
BPPVE approval as evidence of licensing or approval as required under 8 CFR 214.3(b).
SAT finds that the documents and statements submitted by the petitioner with its petition and on
appeal do not meet the burden of proof (pursuant to 8 CFR 103.2(b)(l)) that CITS is an affiliate
institution of ITS or that it shares ITS' BPPVE approval or ATA and ATS accreditations. The
petitioner is advised that each Form 1-17 petition must stand on its own merits, meaning that an
institution applying for SEVP certification must be able to provide evidence in its own name that
it meets SEVP regulatory and evidentiary requirements. A school may not submit another
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000389
CHINESE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Page 6 of 11
institution's certification as proof (or in substitution) of its own certification or licensing. In thecase of licensing, approval, or accreditation, required under 8 CFR 214.3(b), CITS may not
provide ITS' BPPVE approval and/or accreditations as proof that its own petitioning school
meets these requirements. The record shows that CITS has provided no official documentation,
in the name of CITS, that its institution satisfies the SEVP licensing requirements under 8 CFR
214.3(b). A statement in the Catalog further supports SAT's conclusion that there is no officially
recognized affiliation between the two schools. The section "Relationship with Other
Institutions" makes no reference to CITS and instead states:
In its early years, ITS enjoyed a special relationship with Calvin Theological
Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The two schools entered into a special
cooperative agreement to allow ITS students in the Christian Reformed Church
(CRC) to transfer to Calvin Theological Seminary. Also, Calvin Theological
Seminary supplied the equivalent of one fulltime professorship to ITS every year
in those years.
ITS also had a special relationship Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson,
Mississippi, for several years in late 1990s to operate a joint Doctor of Ministryprogram.
8 CFR 103.2(b)(12) Effect where evidence submitted in response to a request does not establisheligibility at the time offiling, states:
An application or petition shall be denied where evidence submitted in response
to a request for evidence does not establish filing eligibility at the time the
application or petition was filed. An application or petition shall be denied where
any application or petition upon which it was based was filed subsequently.
SAT finds that the petitioner has not provided proof of any official or legal affiliation between
CITS and ITS. Neither the BPPVE approval and/or accreditation documents for ITS indicate that
the approvals extend to or includes CITS and as such, do not demonstrate approval for CITS
with the BPPVE, ATA, or ATS entities. The ITS statement describing its relationship with CITS
(described as an "affidavit") is also not acceptable evidence since the agreement made between
the two parties was not recognized or acknowledged in any of the approval or accreditation
documents submitted by the petitioner during adjudication. Therefore, SAT finds that the
petitioner has not presented satisfactory evidence that meets the requirements pursuant to 8 CFR
214.3(b) related to licensing or approval and that SCB correctly denied the petition for not
proving that it met the eligibility requirements with the evidence submitted in response to theRFE (pursuant to 8 CFR lO3.2(b)(12)).
SCB also denied the petitioner's Form 1-17 after determining that the petitioner did not submit
the instructor salaries with its petition as required under 8 CFR 214.303).
8 CFR 214.3(b), Supporting documents, states, in pertinent part:
ICE.12.2714.000390
CHINESE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Page 7 of 11
Institutions petitioning for certification or rccertification must submit certain
supporting documents as follows, pursuant to sections 101(a)(15)(F) and (M) of
the Act. ... A school catalogue, if one is issued, shall also be submitted with each
petition. If not included in the catalogue, or if a catalogue is not issued, the school
shall furnish a written statement containing information concerning the size of its
physical plant, nature of its facilities for study and training, educational,
vocational or professional qualifications of the teaching staff, salaries of the
teachers, attendance and scholastic grading policy, amount and character of
supervisory and consultative services available to students and trainees, and
finances (including a certified copy of the accountant's last statement of school's
net worth, income, and expenses). ...
On appeal, the petitioner states:
As my record shows, we have indeed sent you all information along with a
catalogue/statement per 8 CFR 214.3(b) upon receiving the said letter, dated
November 10, 2010. It seem what now missing is only the salary information. If
this is the only remaining issue, then I will refer to the response letter and package
we sent you, dated October 18, 2010.
During initial adjudication, SCB sent the school a RFE on July 29,2010 requesting, among other
items: "5) A statement containing information on educational, vocational, or professional
qualifications of the teaching staff (by name), salaries of the teachers, amount and character of
supervisory and consultative services available to students and trainees."
With its response to the RFE (dated October 28, 2010), the petitioner submitted "A Statement of
Information on the Teaching Staff that included a list of the teaching staff (seven instructors).
The salary information indicated that the basic salary for Resident Professors was $2,000 per
month and that the teaching load was two courses per quarter for 6 - 8 credit hours. The officers
were to be given a compensation of $500 per month for administrative work (if the teaching load
was not reduced) and for Adjunct Professors, travel expenses were to be covered, in addition to a
Honorarium of $500 - $800 per intensive course of one week. The document stated the salaries
for several of the instructors were to be provided on a pro bono gratis basis to defray school
expenses. SAT finds that the salary information, determined by SCB to have not been provided
during initial adjudication, was actually submitted by the petitioner with its response to the RFE.
As further evidence of the instructors' salaries, the petitioner also provided copies of five
employment contracts for and two agreements for
one individual, with its RFE response. The documents show that the term
of the employment contracts for and (dated February 28, 2010, June 21, 2010
and August 31, 2008, respectively) were for two years (or modified by mutual agreement) and
the re-numeration (salary) was to be non-gratis, with compensation only for travel expenses.
None of the three contracts were signed by the instructor named in the agreement, thereby
making the contracts unenforceable, and therefore invalid. Only the employment contracts for
(dated December 31, 2008 and June 30, 2009 for a period of two years) indicated a salary
was to be paid to the named instructor.
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000391
CHINESE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Page 8 of 11
The petitioner states on appeal:
In the last paragraph of The Statement, I reported to you that many of our
teachers, including some Adjuncts elect to serve this institution on a Pro Bono
basis without numeration because they are burdened and supportive to the vision
and cause of this school. [Enclosed please find three (3) samples of the Pro Bono
Agreements.] In this bad economy many entrepreneurs are willing to forego their
salaries in order to achieve something they really believe worthwhile while
providing their institution an easier start. We consider ourselves very fortunate to
have these qualified teachers to help us without financial returns. We too are
working for our dream, which, in our collective belief, is more important than
material rewards. We at CITS are truly not for gain or profit, (emphasis in
original)
On appeal, the petitioner submitted another document entitled "A Statement of Information on
the Teaching Staff' listing the teaching staff and salary levels. The document showed eight
instructors, while the document submitted with the RFE response listed seven instructors. The
appeal document indicated that the basic salary for Resident Professors was $2,000 per month
and that the teaching load was two courses per quarter for 6 - 8 credit hours. The officers were
also to be given a compensation of $500 per month for administrative workloads (if the teaching
load was not reduced). Additionally, the document states "Some of the professors agree to teach
courses on pro bono - gratis basis to defray school expenses." Two Pro Bono agreements (the
petitioner stated he had submitted three but only two were found in the record) were submitted
with the appeal, one for and one for The new evidence
provided on appeal in the form of more recent Pro Bono agreements cannot be considered on
appeal as new evidence requires a new petition. • SAT also notes discrepancies with each
statement provided by the petitioner regarding it CITS teaching staff - 1) the Form 1-17 petition
showed six instructors, 2) the instructor list provided with the RFE response listed seven
instructors, and 3) the instructor list submitted with the appeal listed eight instructors.
8 CFR 214.2(f)(6), Full course ofstudy - (i) General, states, in pertinent part:
Successful completion of the full course of study must lead to the attainment of a
specific educational or professional objective. A course of study at an institution
not approved for attendance by foreign students as provided in §214.3(a)(3) does
not satisfy this requirement. A "full course of study" as required by section
101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Act means:
(A) Postgraduate study or postdoctoral study at a college or university, or
undergraduate or postgraduate study at a conservatory or religious seminary,
certified by a DSO as a full course of study;
(B) Undergraduate study at a college or university, certified by a school official to
consist of at least twelve semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic
term in those institutions using standard semester, trimester, or quarter hour
systems, where all undergraduate students who are enrolled for a minimum of
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000392
CHINESE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Page 9 of 11
twelve semester or quarter hours are charged full-time tuition or are considered
full-time for other administrative purposes, or its equivalent (as determined by the
district director in the school approval process), except when the student needs a
lesser course load to complete the course of study during the current term; ...
The regulations at 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(A) and (B), respectively, require a "full course of study"
at a postgraduate study or postdoctoral study at a college or university to be certified by a
Designated School Official (DSO) and for undergraduate study at a college or university to be
certified by a school official to consist of at least twelve semester or quarter hours of instruction
per academic term in those institutions using standard semester, trimester, or quarter hours.
Since the petitioner's institution is requesting certification for both undergraduate and
postgraduate study, it must satisfy the requirements of both 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(A) and (B).
Additionally, 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(C) requires that to be eligible for approval, the petitioner
must establish that it possesses the necessary facilities, personnel, and finances to conduct
instruction in recognized courses.
Of the instructors listed by the school, almost three-fourths (based on the RFE response that
listed seven instructors) of the CITS teaching staff are shown to provide their teaching services
on a pro bono basis (as identified in the Pro Bono agreements submitted by the petitioner for
and with its petition and appeal). Only two contracts (submitted
for the same individual) indicated that a CITS instructor was actually receiving a salary for hisservices.
SEVP must ensure that schools applying for SEVP certification have the appropriate number of
instructors employed to provide a full course of study to its nonimmigrant students. On appeal,the petitioner admits that:
In the last paragraph of The Statement, I reported to you that many of our
teachers, including some Adjuncts elect to serve this institution on a Pro Bono
basis without numeration because they are burdened and supportive to the vision
and cause of this school. [Enclosed please find three (3) samples of the Pro Bono
Agreements.] In this bad economy many entrepreneurs are willing to forego their
salaries in order to achieve something they really believe worthwhile while
providing their institution an easier start, (emphasis in original)
If the petitioner's institution has no salaries for a significant number of its instructors (providing
instructional services on a pro bono basis), then it can be concluded that the school cannot ensure
that those instructors will be available to offer a full course of study to its nonimmigrantstudents.
SAT finds, based on the explanation regarding instructors and the instructor employment
contracts submitted with the appeal (and initial petition), CITS cannot ensure that nonimmigrant
students will be provided a full course of study, thereby failing to meet the requirements of 8
CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(A) and (B) that an institution provide a full course of study nor has CITS
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000393
ICE.12.2714.000394
ICE.12.2714.000395
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000396
DEL RIO ACADEMY Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), School Certification Branch (SCB), denied petitioner’s Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student (Form I-17) on March 11, 2011 (Notice of Denial). The matter is now before the SEVP Appeals Team (SAT). The appeal will be remanded to the SCB for a Request for Evidence (RFE) to be submitted to petitioner in accordance with this decision. The petition at issue in this proceeding is the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Form I-17 filed on May 5, 2010. The Form I-17 reflects that the petitioner in this matter, Del Rio Academy, is a private institution established on August 1, 2008. The petitioner offers elementary and middle school education for emotionally disturbed children, employs 3 instructors, and declares an enrollment of 32 students. The petitioner seeks approval for attendance by F-1 nonimmigrant academic students. There is no evidence that the petitioner has ever been approved for attendance by nonimmigrant academic or vocational students in the past. SCB denied the petitioner’s Form I-17 for one reason. SCB found that petitioner failed to provide evidence of licensure, approval or accreditation as required under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b). SAT finds, however, that SCB used an incorrect portion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b) in its Notice of Denial. (SCB incorrectly cited the section of the regulation requiring “Any other petitioning school shall submit a certification by the appropriate licensing, approving, or accrediting official who shall certify that he or she is authorized to do so to the effect that it is licensed, approved, or accredited.”) As a private elementary school, petitioner is required to provide the following evidence under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b): “…a certification signed by the appropriate public official who shall certify that he or she is authorized to do so to the effect that it meets the requirements of the State or local public educational system.” The RFE submitted to petitioner on July 8, 2010 requested, as item number two, “a copy of State Department of Education license, registration or proof of exemption from such regulation by the State.” It is not clear from this statement if SCB was requesting evidence that petitioner’s school meets the requirements of the State or local public educational system. This decision will be remanded to SCB so that it may issue another RFE to petitioner specifically requesting evidence in support of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b), “…a certification signed by the appropriate public official who shall certify that he or she is authorized to do so to the effect that it meets the requirements of the State or local public educational system”, to ensure that Del Rio Academy meets the requirements of the State of New Mexico or the local public educational system. SAT also found the following two discrepancies in the Record of Proceeding (ROP). The first discrepancy SAT notes in the ROP is that SCB failed to request a statement satisfying the requirement at 8 C.F.R 214.2(f)(6)(i)(E), which states:
Study in a curriculum at an approved private elementary or middle school or public or private academic high school which is certified by a designated school official to consist of class attendance for not less than the minimum number of hours a week prescribed by the school for normal progress toward graduation.
ICE.12.2714.000397
DEL RIO ACADEMY Page 3 of 3
SAT directs SCB, upon remand for RFE, to request a statement by the designated school official for Del Rio Academy attesting that the curriculum consists of class attendance for not less than the minimum number of hours a week prescribed by the school for normal progress toward graduation. Secondly, SAT notes that SCB did not request evidence in support of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i), which states: “ The petitioner, to be eligible for certification, must establish at the time of filing that it: (C) Possesses the necessary facilities, personnel, and finances to conduct instruction in recognized courses.” In addition, SAT has found that petitioner is required to provide further evidence under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b):
…a written statement containing information concerning the size of its physical plant, nature of its facilities for study and training, educational, vocational or professional qualifications of the teaching staff, salaries of the teachers, attendance and scholastic grading policy, amount and character of supervisory and consultative services available to students and trainees, and finances (including a certified copy of the accountant’s last statement of school’s net worth, income and expenses).
Therefore, SAT directs SCB to include a request for evidence in support of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(C) and 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b) in the RFE to petitioner. Del Rio Academy must establish eligibility for SEVP certification as its own entity. SEVP will not consider the affiliation with Sandhill Academy as evidence of meeting the above regulatory requirements for SEVP certification. CONCLUSION: SAT hereby overturns the SCB’s Notice of Denial as the one ground used for the denial, failure to provide evidence of licensure, approval, or accreditation under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b), is not applicable to petitioner as a private elementary school. SAT remands this decision back to SCB so that it may issue petitioner another RFE for evidence applicable to private elementary schools under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b). (SCB had applied an incorrect section of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b).) SAT directs SCB to request a statement from petitioner in accordance with 8 C.F.R 214.2(f)(6)(i)(E), attesting that the curriculum consists of class attendance for not less than the minimum number of hours a week prescribed by the school for normal progress toward graduation. Lastly, SAT finds that petitioner must provide evidence of eligibility for certification as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(C) and 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b). ORDER: The Notice of Denial is hereby overturned. The appeal will be remanded to SCB so that a RFE may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with this decision.
ICE.12.2714.000398
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000399
ICE.12.2714.000400
ICE.12.2714.000401
ICE.12.2714.000402
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000403
ICE.12.2714.000404
ICE.12.2714.000405
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000406
ICE.12.2714.000407
ICE.12.2714.000408
ICE.12.2714.000409
ICE.12.2714.000410
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000411
ICE.12.2714.000412
ICE.12.2714.000413
ICE.12.2714.000414
LANGUAGE WORLD, INC.
Page 1 of7
fni uml Exchange Visitor Program
U.S. ij,■ 11.111111*■ rii or liuiiid.iini Security
500 12th Slrwt, SW. Slop 5600
Washington, DC 2O53f.
gi U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement
FEB 15 2011
FILE:
OFFICE: STUDENT AND EXC11ANGE VISITOR PROGRAM
SEVP APPEALS TEAM
WASHINGTON DC, 20536
IN RE: PETITIONER: LANGUAGE WORLD, INC.
PETITION: Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student under
section 101 (a)(l 5)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)( 15)(F)(i)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program in regards to the filing of Form
I-Z90B Notice of Appeal. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000415
LANGUAGE WORLD, INC.
Page 2 of7
DISCUSSION: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), School Certification
Branch (SCB), denied petitioner's Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by
Nonimmigrant Student (Form 1-17) on March 30, 2010 (SCB Notice of Denial). Petitioner
timely filed the Form I-290B and the matter is now before the SEVP Appeals Team (SAT).
The petition at issue in this proceeding is the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS) Form 1-17 filed on February 24, 2009. The Form 1-17 reflects that the petitioner in this
matter, Language World, Inc., is a private institution established in 1981. The Form 1-17 reflects
that petitioner offers instruction in language training. Petitioner declares that it employs SO
teachers and enrolls 1,000 students. The petitioner seeks approval for attendance by F-l
nonimmigrant students.
SCB denied the petition for failure to demonstrate that Language World, Inc. was engaged in
instruction at the time of filing, according to 8 C.F.R. W3.2(b)(l) and 8 C.F.R. 214.3(e)(l). In
addition, SCB denied the petition for failure to meet the full course of study requirement for
nonimmigrant students pursuing language study, as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)(i)(D).
SAT found that SCB, in denying petitioner for failure to be engaged in instruction at the time of
filing, quoted the correct regulation (see below), but referred to it by an outdated regulatory
citation, 8 C.F.R. 2J4.3(e)(l), that has been since renumbered. The correct citation for denial of
petitioner on this ground is 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(D):
The petitioner, to be eligible for certification, must establish at the time of filing
that it:
(A) Is a bona fide school;
(B) Is an established institution of learning or other recognized place of study;
(C) Possesses the necessary facilities, personnel, and finances to conduct
instruction in recognized courses; and
(D) Is, infact, engaged in instruction in those courses, [emphasis added]
SCB determined that petitioner was not engaged in instruction at the time of filing, in part,
because the SEVIS Certification, Site Visit Checklist, dated March 12, 2009, stated in Section
III: "They [Language World, Inc] have not conducted any English language classes since fall
2008, however, they continue to regularly conduct classes in Italian, Spanish and French."
SAT finds that this information constitutes derogatory evidence that was used in the SCB Notice
of Denial. The regulations require that this evidence must first be provided to the petitioner for
response or rebuttal prior to denial. This is required by 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(16)(i),
If the decision will be adverse to the applicant or petitioner and is based on
derogatory information considered by the Service and of which the applicant or
petitioner is unaware, he/she shall be advised of this fact and offered an
opportunity to rebut the information and present information in his/her own behalf
ICE.12.2714.000416
ICE.12.2714.000417
ICE.12.2714.000418
ICE.12.2714.000419
ICE.12.2714.000420
ICE.12.2714.000421
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000422
ICE.12.2714.000423
ICE.12.2714.000424
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000425
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000426
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000427
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000428
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000429
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000430
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000431
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000432
ICE.12.2714.000433
ICE.12.2714.000434
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000435
ICE.12.2714.000436
ICE.12.2714.000437
ICE.12.2714.000438
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000439
ICE.12.2714.000440
ICE.12.2714.000441
ICE.12.2714.000442
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000443
ICE.12.2714.000444
ICE.12.2714.000445
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000446
ICE.12.2714.000447
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000448
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000449
ICE.12.2714.000450
ICE.12.2714.000451
ICE.12.2714.000452
ICE.12.2714.000453
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000454
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000455
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000456
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000457
ICE.12.2714.000458
ICE.12.2714.000459
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000460
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANGUAGE AND ART ACADEMY
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), School Certification Branch (SCB), denied petitioner's Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student (Form I-17) on January 26, 2011 (Notice of Denial). Petitioner timely filed the Form I-290B and the matter is now before the SEVP Appeals Team (SAT). The appeal will be dismissed and this document considered the Notice of Ineligibility. The petition at issue in this proceeding is the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Form I-17 filed on June 4, 2010. The Form I-17 reflects that the petitioner in this matter, Southern California Language and Art Academy (SOCALLAA), is a private institution established on May 1, 2010. The Form I-17 reflects that petitioner offers instruction in language training. Petitioner declares that it employs 2 teachers and enrolls 16 students. The petitioner seeks approval for attendance by F-1 nonimmigrant students. SCB denied the Form I-17 for the following six reasons: first, failure to demonstrate that SOCALLAA was engaged in instruction at the time of filing, according to 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12) and 8 C.F.R. 214.3(e)(1); second, failure to submit the appropriate licensure, approval or accreditation as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b); third, failure to submit evidence that petitioner’s courses of study are accepted as fulfilling the requirements for the attainment of an educational, professional, or vocational objective and are not avocational or recreational in character as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(c); fourth, failure to submit a description of the school’s facilities including the size of the physical plant and the nature of its facilities for instruction as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b); fifth, failure to submit a certified copy of an accountant’s last statement of the school’s net worth, income and expenses as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b); and sixth, failure to provide a full course of study as defined at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(m)(9)(iii) of at least eighteen clock hours of attendance a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of classroom instruction, or at least twenty-two clock hours a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of shop or laboratory work as required by section 101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the Act. SAT finds that SCB, in denying petitioner for failure to be engaged in instruction at the time of filing, quoted the correct regulation, but referred to it by an outdated regulatory citation, 8 C.F.R. 214.3(e)(1), that has been since renumbered. The correct citation for denial of petitioner on this ground is 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(D). In addition, SAT finds that SCB used an incorrect citation in the Notice of Denial for failure to meet the full course of study. The full course of study definition for an academic institution offering instruction in language training is at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)(i)(D) and is required by section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Act. I. The first issue that SCB raised in its Notice of Denial is petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that SOCALLAA was engaged in instruction at the time of filing, as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(D), which states:
The petitioner, to be eligible for certification, must establish at the time of filing that it: (A) Is a bona fide school; (B) Is an established institution of learning or other recognized place of study; (C) Possesses the necessary facilities, personnel, and finances to conduct instruction in recognized courses; and
ICE.12.2714.000461
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANGUAGE AND ART ACADEMY
Page 3 of 3
(D) Is, in fact, engaged in instruction in those courses. [emphasis added]
SCB determined that petitioner was not engaged in instruction at the time of filing because the SEVIS Certification, Site Visit Checklist, dated July 8, 2010 stated in Section I, question two: “Has the school conducted their very first class of instruction? No. If no, date school will open for instruction: 08/01/2010.” SAT finds that this information constitutes derogatory evidence that was used in the Notice of Denial. The regulations require that this evidence must first be provided to the petitioner for response or rebuttal prior to denial. This is required by 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(16)(i):
If the decision will be adverse to the applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory information considered by the Service and of which the applicant or petitioner is unaware, he/she shall be advised of this fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the information and present information in his/her own behalf before the decision is rendered, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(16)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section.
SAT finds that SCB should have presented this information to the petitioner in a Request for Evidence (RFE) to give petitioner the opportunity to respond. SAT, therefore, finds that the Site Visit Checklist may not be used as grounds for denial on this matter. However, SAT finds that denial on this matter is substantiated based on the preponderance of evidence found in the Record of Proceeding (ROP), of which petitioner is aware since the evidence was signed by the same. Specifically, SAT found a “Fictitious Business Name Statement” signed by Principal Designated School Official (PDSO) recorded in the official records of Orange County, California, on August 17, 2010, which has in question five: “Have you started doing business yet? No.” In addition, SAT found that the “Order for Publication of Fictitious Business Name” in the Mission Viejo News also states that “[t]he registrants have not commenced to do business under the fictitious business name or names listed above. This Public Notice was to appear in the Mission Viejo News on May 14, 2010, May 21, 2010, May 28, 2010, and June 4, 2010. In order for this Notice to have been accurate on the June 4, 2010 printing date, petitioner must not have commenced to do business. However, June 4, 2010 is also the date petitioner filed the Form I-17 petition and per the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(D), petitioner must establish that it is, in fact, engaged in instruction in those courses at the time of filing. On appeal, petitioner states that “[t]he school was in operation that time. PDSO response to the site visitor was that the new courses will start on August 1st in our other building. School has two buildings & site visitor inspected both of them.” Petitioner provided no evidence on appeal, however, to support this statement. Therefore, SAT finds that petitioner has not established that it was engaged in instruction at the time of filing and therefore, has not met the requirement of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(D). II. The second issue raised by SCB in the Notice of Denial is failure to submit the appropriate licensure, approval or accreditation as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b), which states: “Any other petitioning school shall submit a certification by the appropriate licensing, approving, or
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000462
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANGUAGE AND ART ACADEMY
Page 4 of 4
accrediting official who shall certify that he or she is authorized to do so to the effect that it is licensed, approved, or accredited.” SCB found that in response to an August 24, 2010 RFE, petitioner submitted a letter dated September 29, 2010, from the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) stating; “This letter is to confirm the receipt of the Verification of Exempt Status application that was received on September 16, 2010.” SCB correctly found that petitioner did not submit any evidence showing that SOCALLAA was actually exempt from BPPE authorization. SAT agrees with SCB’s findings on this matter, petitioner has not established that it is exempt from licensure, approval or accreditation. On appeal, petitioner states that:
We assumed that since because of budget deficit for a period of time California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) didn’t required authorization to operate then we didn’t apply for it prior to the filling petition to SEVP for I-17 permit. When we received the letter that such a permit requires in order to perform a school in CA, then we applied for it on that time. The school is approved by BPPE as exempt school.
Petitioner bears the burden of proof in these proceedings, pursuant to 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1). (See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1).) The fact that petitioner was unaware of the BPPE requirements is immaterial to the adjudication of the Form I-17 for SEVP certification. SAT agrees with SCB’s findings that petitioner provided no evidence to show that SOCALLAA is exempt from BPPE approval. SAT, therefore, finds that petitioner has not met the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b). III. The third issue raised by SCB in the Notice of Denial is petitioner’s failure to provide sufficient evidence in support of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(c), which states: “If the petitioner is a vocational, business or language school…it must submit evidence that its courses of study are accepted as fulfilling the requirements for the attainment of an educational, professional, or vocational objective, and are not avocational or recreational in character.” SCB found that in response to the August 24, 2010 RFE, petitioner submitted letters from Saddleback College, dated September 13, 2010, Irvine Valley College, dated September 13, 2010, and Santa Ana College, dated September 9, 2010, that do not provide the required evidence demonstrating that petitioner’s institution is not avocational or recreational in character. Specifically, SCB requested in the RFE that the three letters attest that the schools have accepted and will continue to accept students from petitioner’s school as English proficient. Not one of the three letters made this statement. In fact, the letters did not indicate that they have accepted any students from SOCALLAA. On appeal, petitioner states “[h]ow can we graduated students from our school & sent them to those colleges since our school was newly opened & we still don’t have our I-17 permit…..” For institutions offering language training, SEVP will only accept letters from institutions of higher education that have accepted a graduate of the petitioning school as English proficient as
ICE.12.2714.000463
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANGUAGE AND ART ACADEMY
Page 5 of 5
evidence in support of 8 CFR 214.3(c). Therefore, SAT agrees with SCB’s findings that the three letters failed to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(c). IV. The fourth issue raised by SCB in the Notice of Denial is petitioner’s failure to provide a sufficient description of the school’s facilities including the size of the physical plant and the nature of its facilities for instruction as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b), which states: “A school catalogue…shall also be submitted with each petition. If not included in the catalogue, or if a catalogue is not issued, the school shall furnish a written statement containing information concerning the size of its physical plant, nature of its facilities for study and training…” SCB found in its Notice of Denial that in response to the August 24, 2010 RFE, petitioner submitted a copy of its floor plan onto which was written the capacity for each room and the room’s use. Upon closer examination SAT finds that the floor plan also contained the square footage of the facility. SCB determined that this did not meet the above regulatory requirement because petitioner failed to provide the maximum capacity of each room as indicated by the state or the fire marshal. SAT finds that while the above regulation does not specifically require a state or fire marshal report on maximum capacity, SAT agrees that the information submitted by petitioner is insufficient to determine whether the school possesses the necessary facilities to conduct instruction as required under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(C). SEVP must determine whether a petitioning school has sufficient physical space, instructional components and classroom space to conduct instruction of nonimmigrant students. On appeal, petitioner states that the school did submit a letter from the city with the maximum capacity of the facility and fulfilled this regulatory requirement. Petitioner provided no further information describing this evidence, nor was it re-submitted upon appeal. Upon further examination of the ROP, SAT disagrees with petitioner’s statement and finds that the ROP does not include said evidence. Therefore, SAT agrees with SCB’s finding that petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding its physical plant and facilities to satisfy the regulatory requirement of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b). V. The fifth issue raised by SCB in its Notice of Denial is petitioner’s failure to submit a certified copy of an accountant’s last statement of the school’s net worth, income and expenses as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b). SCB requested this evidence in the August 24, 2010 RFE, issue number six. SOCALLAA responded to this request on October 14, 2010 stating “(s)ince So Cal Language & Art Academy is a brand new school, There is not any certified copy of an accountant’s last statement of the school’s net worth, income and expenses.” A thorough search of the ROP failed to reveal any other financial evidence provided by the school. SAT, therefore, agrees with SCB’s finding that petitioner failed to provide the certified copy of an accountant’s last statement of the school’s net worth, income and expenses as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b). VI. The sixth issue raised by SCB in its Notice of Denial is failure to provide a full course of study as defined by 8 C.F.R. 214.2(m)(9)(iii) “Study in a vocational or other nonacademic curriculum, other than in a language training program except as provided in § 214.3(a)(2)(iv), certified by a designated school official to consist of at least eighteen clock hours of attendance a
ICE.12.2714.000464
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANGUAGE AND ART ACADEMY
Page 6 of 6
week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of classroom instruction, or at least twenty-two clock hours a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of shop or laboratory work.” SAT finds that SCB used an incorrect citation in its denial of the petition for failure to meet the full course of study. The full course of study definition for an academic institution offering instruction in language training is at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)(i)(D) and is required by section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Act, and states:
Study in any other language, liberal arts, fine arts, or other nonvocational training program, certified by a designated school official to consist of at least eighteen clock hours of attendance a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of classroom instruction, or to consist of at least twenty-two clock hours a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of laboratory work.
SCB found in its Notice of Denial that in response to the August 24, 2010 RFE, issue number two, petitioner responded on October 14, 2010 with insufficient evidence in support of the full course of study requirement. Specifically, SCB stated that:
…the school submitted a breakdown of hours for five (5) programs: Intensive English Program, Semi-Intensive English Program, TOEFL Preparation Program, Part-Time English Program, and Summer Camp. The information provided by the school does not breakdown the hours by week, nor does it differentiate between lab and classroom hours. The submission of information on five (5) programs directly contradicts the Form I-17 submitted by the school which only lists two (2) programs for which they are seeking certification (Intensive English and Semi-Intensive English). Furthermore several of the programs do not meet the definition of a full course of study as listed above. The breakdown of instructional hours for those programs is as follows (the evidence submitted did not differentiate between lab and classroom hours): -Semi-Intensive English Program, between 4 and 48 total weeks of instruction, 16 hours 40 minutes of total hours of instruction per week. -Part-Time English Program, between 4 and 24 total weeks of instruction, 13 hours 20 minutes of total hours of instruction per week. -Summer Camp, no information submitted.
SAT also found other evidence in the ROP regarding the number of hours of instruction per week. Specifically, on October 15, 2010, SEVP emailed the petitioner with follow-up questions on the submission of evidence from October 14, 2010 in response to the RFE. In this email, SEVP again requested:
A statement listing each program for which you are seeking approval and outlining instruction hours per week (classroom, internship, and lab hours should
ICE.12.2714.000465
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANGUAGE AND ART ACADEMY
Page 7 of 7
be separate) and the number of weeks it takes the student to complete the program. Note: the program hour statement is not the same as sample schedule.
In response to this email request, petitioner inserted its response into the text of the same email and provided the following information from on Monday, October 25, 2010 to SEVP:
INTENSIVE ENGLISH PROGRAM 28 Lessons per week (7 Lessons per day) Monday through Thursday, 9:00 AM-4:20PM (40 min. for Lunch) Course Length: 4-48 Weeks SEMI-INTENSIVE ENGLISH PROGRAM 18 Lessons per week (4-5 Lessons per day) Monday through Thursday, 9:00AM-2:20PM (40 min. for Lunch) Course Length: 4-48 Weeks TOEFL PREPARATION PROGRAM 28 Lessons per week (7 Lessons per day) Monday through Thursday, 9:00AM-4:20PM (40 min. for Lunch) Course Length: 8-16 Weeks
On appeal, petitioner identified the two programs for which it is seeking certification as the Intensive English Program and the Semi-Intensive English Program. SAT finds that, based on the above schedule for the Intensive English Program, that this program met the full course of study definition for a language program. In addition to the October 25, 2010 email, SAT notes two other documents in the record that provide instructional hours. One document, entitled “Our English Programs” shows that the Semi-Intensive English Program is conducted for 4 hours and 10 minutes each day, and meets for four days a week, which comes to a total of 16 hours and 40 minutes a week. (This calcucation excludes the lunch break and other breaks taken during the class day, as indicated on the document.) Another document in the record, the school catalog, entitled “South California Language & Art Academy” (Catalog), on page five, under “Programs”, also provides a sample class schedule for the Semi-Intensive English Program. Despite the inconsistency between the three class schedules submitted by the petitioner during the course of adjudication (i.e. the scheduled lunch hour is longer and consequently, the end time of the class day is different in the Catalog class schedule from the other two schedules); the number of hours of classroom instruction is the same - four hours and 10 minutes per day for four days per week, equivalent to 16 hours and 40 minutes per week. Therefore, the Semi-Intensive English Program does not meet the full course of study requirements. SAT agrees with SCB that the only program for which petitioner seeks certification that meets the full course of study definition at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)(i)(D), is the Intensive English Program.
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000466
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANGUAGE AND ART ACADEMY
Page 8 of 8
SAT finds that SCB correctly identified inappropriate advertising by SOCALLAA in the Notice of Denial. Specifically, the Catalog states on page two, under “About Us,” in the last sentence, “The school…is authorized to issue the legal documents required to obtain a student Visa (SEVIS approved I-20 Form) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS.” In addition, SAT notes further inappropriate advertising on page nine of the Catalog, under “General Information,” within the section called “Acceptance:”
After SOCALLAA receives your application form and fees, they will send you an I-20 Form (Certificate of Eligibility) if requested and an acceptance package. The acceptance package will give you more information about your next steps, including your arrival at SOCALLAA, U.S.A. You will then apply for a student (F-1) visa. To do this, you will need to bring your I-20 Form and other required documents to your nearest U.S. Consulate.
SCB also correctly noted inappropriate advertising on SOCALLAA’s website, copies of which were placed in the ROP by SCB. Specifically, on January 21, 2011, the SCB Adjudicator noted that the school’s website, www.socallaa.com, contained the same untrue statement as was mentioned in the Catalog, that “(t)he school is authorized….to issue the (SEVIS approved I-20 Form) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS.” In addition, instructions on how to obtain the Form I-20 were given on the website. While this matter is not a ground for denial, SAT agrees with SCB’s statement in the Notice of Denial that these advertisements are untrue and not in keeping with the regulations for SEVP approved schools which state under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(j):
In any advertisement, catalogue, brochure, pamphlet, literature, or other material hereafter printed or reprinted by or for an approved school, any statement which may appear in such material concerning approval for attendance by nonimmigrant students shall be limited solely to the following: This school is authorized under Federal law to enroll nonimmigrant students.
On appeal, petitioner argues that the website and the Catalog were prepared for release after the approval of the school by SEVP, which petitioner understood from the Site Visit Inspector to be within two weeks after the site visit. SAT finds that this explanation does not excuse the misleading and untrue advertising on the school’s website and in its Catalog. SAT asks that the school remove all such information from SOCALLA’s advertisements.
SAT also noted three additional discrepancies within the ROP that were not raised by the SCB Adjudicator in the Notice of Denial. However, if the petitioner should choose to file a new Form I-17 petition, the discrepancies identified in this decision should not be considered an exhaustive list of discrepancies of which the petitioner may need to overcome with a new petition.
ICE.12.2714.000467
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANGUAGE AND ART ACADEMY
Page 9 of 9
First, SAT found that in the SEVIS Certification Site Visit Checklist, on the first page, under “School Address,” is a note from the Site Visit Inspector that petitioner recently changed its name from “Southern California Learning Academy” to “Southern California Language and Art Academy.” In addition, SAT found further evidence of the original name in the ROP on the document “The Mission Viejo News, Order for Publication, Fictitious Business Name.” It states that “(t)he following company is doing business as: Southern California Learning Academy/The Art of Healing.” (emphasis added) This document was certified on May 14, 2010 by the Legal Advertising Officer of the Mission Viejo News. This fictitious name and address of petitioner’s school was to print in the Mission Viejo News on May 14, 2010, May 21, 2010, May 28, 2010, and June 4, 2010. Therefore, SAT finds that as of the date of filing the Form I-17 on June 4, 2010, petitioner was registered under the name of “Southern California Learning Academy/The Art of Healing” and not under the current SOCALLAA. SCB did not request further information about this name change in the RFE of August 24, 2010. This material modification to the Form I-17 is also not discussed in the Notice of Denial. SEVP must have accurate and up to date information on all schools seeking certification. Second, SAT found that the resumes provided by petitioner of its two teachers,and lacked professional qualifications and experience in teaching English to speakers of foreign languages. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b) state “…the school shall furnish…educational, vocational or professional qualifications of the teaching staff…”. SCB did not request further information on the qualifications of the teachers to provide English language training to nonimmigrant students in the August 24, 2010 RFE, nor was this matter discussed in the Notice of Denial. Third, SAT found that petitioner offers a Part-Time English Program and a Summer Camp Program to B1-B2 visa holders. While this in and of itself is not disqualifying for certification, the programs offered to the B1-B2 visa holders must be recreational in nature and the programs offered to F1 visa holders must not be avocational or recreational in character. It is clear from the evidence provided in the ROP that there is no distinction in the nature of the courses offered to B1-B2 visa holders and those offered to F1 visa holders, other than the number of clock hours of instruction per week. Therefore, SAT finds another reason that SOCALLAA cannot satisfy the requirements of 8 CFR 214.3(c), which requires that institutions submit evidence that its courses of study meet an educational, professional, or vocational objective, and are not avocational or recreational in character. Lastly, in the event the petitioner chooses to refile, attached is a previous SEVP broadcast message that includes a link to Public Law 111-306, the law which sets forth accreditation requirements for English Language training programs. Please follow the link and read the statute to ensure that you understand the eligibility requirements. CONCLUSION: SCB denied SOCALLAA’s Form I-17 for the following six reasons: first, failure to demonstrate that SOCALLAA was engaged in instruction at the time of filing, according to 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1) and 8 C.F.R. 214.3(e)(1); second, failure to submit the appropriate licensure,
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000468
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANGUAGE AND ART ACADEMY
Page 10 of 10
approval or accreditation as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b); third, failure to submit evidence that petitioner’s courses of study are accepted as fulfilling the requirements for the attainment of an educational, professional, or vocational objective and are not avocational or recreational in character as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(c); fourth, failure to submit a description of the school’s facilities including the size of the physical plant and the nature of its facilities for instruction as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b); fifth, failure to submit a certified copy of an accountant’s last statement of the school’s net worth, income and expenses as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b); and sixth, failure to provide a full course of study as defined at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(m)(9)(iii) of at least eighteen clock hours of attendance a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of classroom instruction, or at least twenty-two clock hours a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of shop or laboratory work as required by section 101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the Act. SAT found that SCB, in denying petitioner for failure to be engaged in instruction at the time of filing, quoted the correct regulation, but referred to it by an outdated regulatory citation, 8 C.F.R. 214.3(e)(1), that has been since renumbered. The correct citation for denial of petitioner on this ground is 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(D). In addition, SAT found that SCB used an incorrect citation in its denial of the petition for failure to meet the full course of study requirements. The full course of study definition for an academic institution offering instruction in language training is at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)(i)(D) and is required by section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Act. SAT agreed with all of SCB’s grounds for denial . SAT also agreed with SCB’s statements regarding SOCALLAA’s inappropriate advertising and asks that the school remove any indication of DHS/SEVP approval from its advertisements. Lastly, SAT noted three additional discrepancies in the ROP regarding material modification to the school’s name subsequent to filing the Form I-17, teacher qualifications, and offering a course of study to B1-B2 visa holders that is not recreational in nature. However, if the petitioner should choose to file a new Form I-17 petition, the discrepancies identified in this decision should not be considered an exhaustive list of which the petitioner may need to overcome with a new petition. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
ICE.12.2714.000469
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000470
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000471
ICE.12.2714.000472
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000473
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000474
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000475
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000476
ICE.12.2714.000477
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000478
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000479
ICE.12.2714.000480
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000481
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000482
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000483
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000484
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000485
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000486
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000487
ICE.12.2714.000488
ICE.12.2714.000489
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)e
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000490
WORLDWIDE ENGLISH ACADEMY
Page 2 of 7
DISCUSSION: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), School Certification
Branch (SCB), denied petitioner’s Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by
Nonimmigrant Student (Form I-17) on March 8, 2011 (Notice of Denial). The matter is now
before the SEVP Appeals Team (SAT). The appeal will be dismissed and this document is
considered the Notice of Ineligibility.
The petition at issue in this proceeding is the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS) Form I-17 filed on March 29, 2010. The Form I-17 reflects that the petitioner in this
matter, Worldwide English Academy (WEA), is a private institution established on March 16,
2008. The petitioner offers instruction in language training, employs four instructors, and
declares an enrollment of 15 students. The petitioner seeks approval for attendance by F-1
nonimmigrant academic students. There is no evidence that the petitioner has ever been
approved for attendance by nonimmigrant academic or vocational students in the past.
SCB denied the petitioner’s Form I-17 for two reasons. First, SCB found that petitioner failed to
provide evidence that its courses of study are accepted as fulfilling the requirements for the
attainment of an educational, professional, or vocational objective, and are not avocational or
recreational in character, as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(c). The Notice of Denial states that:
On July 26th
2010, SEVP requested further evidence that you submit ”Original
letters from three different schools of a higher educational level, attesting they
have accepted student(s) from your school and the student(s) were able to
successfully matriculate to the next appropriate grade level. The schools/systems
must either be owned and operated as public educational institutions or systems or
be accredited by a USDOE recognized accrediting body … include the name of
the petitioning school, name of the student(s), date the student(s) enrolled, grade
level accepted into the new school. In addition, there must be evidence
supporting the students referenced in the letters, with program enrollment and
completion/transfer dates (e.g. transcript copies). “
SAT finds that SCB incorrectly quoted the July 26, 2010 Request for Evidence (RFE) in its
Notice of Denial. The above evidence is required under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(c) for elementary and
secondary schools applying for SEVP certification. SCB correctly cited (in the Notice of Denial)
evidence required of language schools under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(c) that “it must submit evidence that
its courses of study are accepted as fulfilling the requirements for the attainment of an
educational, professional, or vocational objective, and are not avocational or recreational in
character”. Additionally, the July 26, 2010 RFE requested the appropriate evidence required of
language schools under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(c):
Original letters on school letterhead from three (3) schools, attesting they have
accepted, and continue to accept, students from the petitioning school as English
proficient. This school must be a school or school system owned and operated as
a public educational institution or system, or a school accredited by a nationally
recognized accrediting body. Letters must include the student’s name, date of
enrollment, and program of study. Additionally, the letters should state that the
ICE.12.2714.000491
WORLDWIDE ENGLISH ACADEMY
Page 3 of 7
student was accepted from your school, and that no further English training is
necessary for acceptance based on the training the student received at your school.
Therefore, although SCB incorrectly quoted the RFE in the Notice of Denial, SAT finds that
SCB used the correct regulatory citation in its Notice of Denial and requested the appropriate
evidence in the RFE pertaining to language schools. SAT finds that while this misstatement may
have caused confusion, it did not alter the ground for denial at 8 C.F.R 214.3(c), failure to
provide sufficient evidence that petitioner’s courses of study are accepted as fulfilling the
requirements for the attainment of an educational, professional, or vocational objective, and are
not avocational or recreational in character.
SAT agrees with SCB’s finding that petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence under 8
C.F.R. 214.3(c). Specifically, SCB requested in the July 26, 2010 RFE that petitioner submit
three letters from schools attesting that they have accepted and will continue to accept graduates
from petitioner’s institution as English proficient. The RFE listed the information that these
letters must contain and requested accompanying transcripts. SAT finds that petitioner
submitted only two letters that met SCB’s requirements as indicated in the RFE; the letter from
Everest University for and accompanying transcript; and the letter from Florida
International University for . SAT finds that petitioner did not submit the
accompanying transcript for until the filing of its appeal. SAT also finds that a third
letter provided on appeal, from Keiser University for , cannot be accepted
upon appeal because it does not show eligibility of the petitioner at the time of filing the Form I-
17 on March 29, 2010. The letter for indicated that he was not enrolled at Keiser
University until March 22, 2011, almost one year after petitioner filed its Form I-17. The
regulations at 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(i) state that “[a]n applicant or petitioner must establish that he or
she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the application or petition.” The new
evidence provided on appeal in the form of a more recent letter cannot be considered on appeal
as new evidence requires a new petition. SAT, therefore, finds that petitioner failed to provide
sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(c).
The second reason for denial is failure to limit its advertising to that which is stated at 8 C.F.R.
214.3(j). SAT finds, however, that SCB incorrectly denied petitioner for failure to limit its
advertising because 8 C.F.R. 214.3(j) only applies to approved schools, not petitioning schools.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.3(j) states:
In any advertisement, catalogue, brochure, pamphlet, literature, or other material
hereafter printed or reprinted, by or for an approved school, any statement which
may appear in such material concerning approval for attendance by nonimmigrant
students shall be limited solely to the following: This school is authorized under
Federal law to enroll nonimmigrant alien students. (emphasis added)
Therefore, while SAT agrees that petitioner’s advertising was incorrect and misleading, it does
not constitute a ground for denial. Upon appeal, petitioner clarified the inappropriate advertising
and has stated that it has since been removed from its website and publications.
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000492
WORLDWIDE ENGLISH ACADEMY
Page 4 of 7
SCB also raised a discrepancy in its Notice of Denial, stating that petitioner did not submit the
requested salaries of the teachers. Upon further review of the Record of Proceeding (ROP), SAT
found that the petitioner submitted partial salary information during initial adjudication since it
only submitted salary information for three instructors while the
Form I-17 indicated employment of four instructors. SAT notes that Worldwide English
Academy indicated that it had six instructors with its instructor qualifications evidence (versus
the four instructors listed on its Form I-17). The petitioner also provided information regarding
the salary range paid to its instructors as well as the Salary Pay Rate for Instructors in Florida. A
general statement regarding salary scales is not acceptable evidence as SEVP is unable to make a
determination about the long-term viability of the instructors or the adequacy of the finances of
the school. Therefore, SAT concurs with SCB and finds that the salary information provided
with the initial petition was insufficient evidence of “vocational or professional qualifications of
the teaching staff, salaries of the teachers,” as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b).
SAT also found the following discrepancies in the record. However, if the petitioner should
choose to file a new Form I-17 petition, the discrepancies identified in this decision should not
be considered an exhaustive list of discrepancies of which the petitioner may need to overcome
with a new petition.
First, SAT notes that SCB did not request evidence in support of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i), which
states: “The petitioner, to be eligible for certification, must establish at the time of filing that it:
… (C) Possesses the necessary facilities, personnel, and finances to conduct instruction in
recognized courses.”
Petitioner provided certified financial statements by Certified Public
Accountant (CPA), for the period ending on December 31, 2009. These statements were for
American Adventure, LLC and not for Worldwide English Academy. In addition, the letter from
indicating that he prepared the compilation of the accompanying balance sheet, also
indicated that:
…I did become aware of a departure from generally accepted accounting
principles that is described in the following paragraph.
A statement of cash flows for the period then ended, has not been presented.
Generally accepted accounting principles require that such a statement be
presented when financial statements purport to present financial position and
results of operations.
SAT finds that the above statement from casts doubt on these financial
statements provided by petitioner. In addition, the balance sheet and profit and loss statements
prepared by are for American Adventure, LLC and not specifically for Worldwide
English Academy. Petitioner also provided another set of certified financial statements, by
from Account Bookkeeping Corp. for the period ending on December 31, 2009.
These documents are for “AMERICAN ADVENTURE, LLC D/B/A WORLDWIDE ENGLISH
ACADEMY”. SAT finds that the financial statements submitted by the petitioner are not
acceptable because the petitioner has provided no documentation substantiating the D/B/A
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000493
WORLDWIDE ENGLISH ACADEMY
Page 5 of 7
relationship between Worldwide English Academy and American Adventure, LLC.
Additionally, SAT notes that the profit and loss statement, prepared by for
January through December 2009 indicates a net loss of $1,211.00. For these reasons SAT finds
that the financial statements do not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(C) and fail
to indicate that petitioner possesses the necessary finances to conduct language instruction for
nonimmigrant students.
SAT also notes that SCB did not request evidence related to the school’s facilities in support of 8
C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i), which states, in pertinent part: “The petitioner, to be eligible for
certification, must establish at the time of filing that it: … (C) Possesses the necessary facilities,
personnel, and finances to conduct instruction in recognized courses.”
In support of the Form I-17 petition, petitioner provided the following information regarding its
facilities:
-a survey filled out by the City of Orlando Fire Department, Fire Safety Management Division,
dated April 23, 2010, stating that no violations were noted.
-a description of the school’s facilities under “General School Information,” on page three,
which states that WEA has five classrooms, a main lobby/secretarial/administrative office, an
administration/teacher’s office, a library/cafeteria, and a state-of-the-art computer lab. The
document also states that classrooms have the capacity to accommodate up to 20 students but
that 12 is the average class size.
-floor plans for the school were also provided, but no Fire Marshall maximum capacity
information was provided, nor was any square footage information given.
While the above regulation does not specifically require a state or fire marshal report on
maximum capacity, SAT finds that the information submitted by petitioner is insufficient to
determine whether the school possesses the necessary facilities to conduct instruction of
nonimmigrant students as required under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(C). SEVP must determine
whether a petitioning school has sufficient physical space, instructional components and
classroom space to conduct instruction of nonimmigrant students. SCB did not make this
finding in its adjudication of WEA.
Second, SAT finds that SCB failed to discuss the “full course of study” in its Notice of Denial.
The full course of study definition for an academic institution offering instruction in language
training is at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)(i)(D) and is required by section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Act, and
states:
Study in any other language, liberal arts, fine arts, or other nonvocational training
program, certified by a designated school official to consist of at least eighteen
clock hours of attendance a week if the dominant part of the course of study
consists of classroom instruction, or to consist of at least twenty-two clock hours a
week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of laboratory work.
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000494
WORLDWIDE ENGLISH ACADEMY
Page 6 of 7
Petitioner submitted the following evidence related to “full course of study” in support of its
Form I-17 petition:
-a document entitled “Grading System,” which states on page four that students must attend 18
hours of class instruction per week. However, no schedule or course breakdown was provided to
support the above statement.
-a document entitled “Sessions and Hours of Instruction,” which states on page one:
Our Intensive English Program is scheduled day and night and it is offered to
local students. Our Super-intensive program is designed for International
Students with F-1 visa status and consists of 18 hours per week. Our lab sessions
also are of 50 minutes each. Lab sessions for I-20 are mandatory with students
having to be physically present at the school’s campus. They are monitored by
teachers, teachers’ Assistants or tutors. Sign-in, Sign-Out sheet mandatory for I-
20’s.
-a document entitled “Program Overview,” which states under “Instructional Hours per Week,”
on page one, it states: “In order to complete each level of the program students will take 4.5
Instructional hours daily 4 times a week for a total of 18 hours per week, from Monday through
Thursday. This super-intensive program is mandatory for F-1 students.” (emphasis in original)
-a document entitled “Program Comparison,” which lists the Intensive English Program (IEP)
and the Full-time Intensive English Program (SIEP). The clock hours of instruction per week
identified for the IEP is six hours of instruction per week. The clock hours of instruction per
week identified for the SIEP is 16 hours per week, in addition to two hours of lab or other
approved activity.
The program that WEA intends for attendance by nonimmigrant students is the SIEP. SAT finds
that it is unclear whether the SIEP meets the full course of study definition found at 8 C.F.R.
214.2(f)(6)(i)(D). It is not clear what constitutes the two hours of lab or “other approved
activity.” SEVP must determine that nonimmigrant students pursuing language study will attend
18 clock hours of instruction per week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of
classroom instruction, which is true for the SIEP. Therefore, SAT finds that petitioner has not
established that its SIEP meets the “full course of study” definition found at 8 C.F.R.
214.2(f)(6)(i)(D).
Third, SAT finds that petitioner failed to submit the appropriate licensure, approval or
accreditation, as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b), which states: “Any other petitioning school shall
submit a certification by the appropriate licensing, approving, or accrediting official who shall
certify that he or she is authorized to do so to the effect that it is licensed, approved, or
accredited.”
SCB failed to request this evidence in the July 26, 2010 RFE and this issue was not raised in the
Notice of Denial. However, the petitioner bears the burden of proof in these proceedings,
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1) (See 8 C.F.R.103.2(b)(1).) and SAT finds that petitioner
ICE.12.2714.000495
WORLDWIDE ENGLISH ACADEMY
Page 7 of 7
provided no evidence to show that WEA is exempt from state approval. SAT therefore finds that
petitioner has not met the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b).
Lastly, the Site Visit Report indicated that Curricular Practical Training (CPT) is “allowed inside
the school aiding instructor(s), when almost complete, level 7 or 8, Immigration has to approve”.
8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(10), Practical training, states, in pertinent part:
Practical training may be authorized to an F-1 student who has been lawfully
enrolled on a full time basis, in a Service-approved college, university,
conservatory, or seminary for one full academic year. … Students in English
language training programs are ineligible for practical training.
The petitioner is advised that students enrolled in English training programs are not eligible for
CPT, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(10).
CONCLUSION: SAT, hereby, upholds the Notice of Denial on one ground, failure of WEA to
provide evidence required under 8 C.F.R. 214.3(c) that its courses of study are accepted as
fulfilling the requirements for the attainment of an educational, professional, or vocational
objective, and are not avocational or recreational in character. In addition, SAT also found
discrepancies in the ROP. However, if the petitioner should choose to file a new Form I-17
petition, the discrepancies identified in this decision should not be considered an exhaustive list
of which the petitioner may need to overcome with a new petition. Specifically, SAT raised four
discrepancies found in the ROP and not discussed in the Notice of Denial; first, WEA failed to
provide evidence in support of 8 C.F.R. 214.3(a)(3)(i)(C), eligibility for certification,
specifically, that it possesses the necessary facilities, personnel and finances to conduct language
instruction for nonimmigrant students; second, SAT finds that WEA failed to establish that it
meets the “full course of study” definition for an academic institution offering instruction in
language training at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)(i)(D); third, SAT finds that WEA failed to submit the
appropriate licensure, approval or accreditation, or evidence of exemption of said requirements,
as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.3(b). Lastly, SAT advises WEA that students in English training
programs are not eligible for CPT.
ORDER: The Notice of Denial is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
ICE.12.2714.000496
~
I
Information for SEVIS Schools The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) is a webaccessible database used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to collect, track and monitor information regarding exchange visitors, international students and scholars who enter the United States on F, M or J visas. SEVIS is managed by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) School Certification Branch (SCB) Q! SEVP Analysis and Operations Center's (SAOC) issues the initial ICE decisions on participation in SEVIS formerly handled via the Legacy INS forms:
• Form 1-17, Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant students,
• Form 1-17 A, Designated School Officials, and • Form I-17B, School System Attachment, as well as the • Form 1-538, Certification by Designated School Official, and certain
other obsolete forms and processes.
Appeal or Motion to Reopen/Reconsider on a Notice of Denial, Automatic Withdrawal (A W) or
Withdrawal on Notice (WON)
Filing Your Appeal or Motion
If you recently received a Notice of Denial, Automatic Withdrawal (AW) or Withdrawal on Notice (WON) you might be able to appeal it or file a motion to reopen and/or reconsider it. Such initial determinations are adjudicated by either the Student and Exchange Visitor Program's (SEVP's) School Certification Branch (SCB) Q! SEVP Analysis and Operations Center's (SAOC). In many cases, you may file an appeal or a motion in response to an unfavorable initial decision.
You should review the written decision that was issued to your school by SCB or SAOC. The written decision will inform you of the reasons for denial, withdrawal, or automatic withdrawal. The notice will inform you of your rights to file an appeal and/or motion as well as the process and filing deadlines. Before you begin assembling evidence concerning an appeal or motion, please make note of the amount of time available to file the appeal or motion.
Page 1 of 4
ICE.12.2714.000497
To aid the practitioners who are accustomed to dealing with USCIS, its various Directors, and the AAO, it may help to equate a SEVIS withdrawal with a USCIS petition revocation in that these types of unfavorable decisions only allow half the normal time to file an appeal as a straight-out denial with the same proviso as to an extra three (3) days if a decision is issued by ordinary U.S. postal snail-mail.
• By regulation, schools denied certification have thirty (30) calendar days to file an appeal and schools withdrawn from certification have fifteen (15) calendar days to file an appeal.
• By regulation, schools wishing to file a motion to reopen or reconsider have thirty (30) calendar days to file for either a denial or withdrawal of certification.
• If you received your Notice of Denial, A W or WON by mail, by regulation, you have an additional three (3) calendar days to file your appeal or motion; therefore, the motion must be emailed or faxed by the 33rd calendar day and the appeal must be filed by the 33rd calendar day for a denial or by the 18th calendar day for an AW or WON.
• The petitioner must meet these deadlines in order to submit a timely filed appeal or motion.
• You may file your appeal or motion electronically by sending it to or by fax to 703-603-3598.
See 8 C.F.R. 103.3, 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l) and 8 C.F.R. 103.5a(b).
Average Processing Time for an Appeal/Motion The review process ensures that your school's specific situation is given maximum consideration. Because of the complexity of each appeal or motion and the nuances of each school's situation, ICE is not able to provide you with an exact timeframe for receipt of your final decision. ICE can assure you that it treats each appeal or motion with the same thorough review, striving to complete the review in the timeliest manner possible. The official that made the initial decision has a regulatory maximum of forty-five ( 45) days to decide if an Appeal should be treated as a Motion before forwarding an Appeal to SAT.
If you have any questions or concerns as your appeal or motion is being processed, please contact the SEVP Appeals Team (SAT) at and they will respond to your concerns as expeditiously and completely as possible.
Page 2 of 4
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000498
• Below from: http://www.ice.gov/sevis/appeals/faq/ (Go and explore.)
Frequently Asked Questions (F AQs) about Appeals and Motions
1. What is the difference between tiling an Appeal and a Motion?
• Motions to reopen or reconsider the Notice of Denial, AW, or WON are adjudicated by the official who made the latest decision in the proceeding (i.e. the SCB or SAOC Adjudicator). These SCB and SAOC motions are not forwarded to SAT for adjudication. The SCB and SAOC decisions on motions are reviewed and signed by the SCB Branch Chief or SAOC Chief.
• An appeal of a Notice of Denial, A W, or WON is first reviewed by the official who made the unfavorable decision being appealed (i.e. the SCB or SAOC Adjudicator). This official decides whether or not favorable action is warranted within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of the appeal, by regulation. If the reviewing official determines that favorable action is warranted, then the reviewing official may treat the appeal as a motion to reopen or reconsider and take favorable action. If the reviewing official determines that favorable action is not warranted, that official shall forward the appeal and the Record of Proceeding (ROP) to SEVP Appeals Team (SAT) for adjudication ofthe appeal. SAT's appeal decision is then reviewed by several entities within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to ensure policy compliance and legal sufficiency. The appeal decision is reviewed and signed by the SEVP Director.
• Petitioner may request an additional30 days to submit the appeal brief by checking this option on the Form I-290B. There are no extensions permitted for the filing of a motion.
• See 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(J)(i), 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(2)(vii). • NOTE: ICE is utilizing USCIS Forms I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion (go to
and Form G-28, Notice of Entry or Appearance as Attorney or Representative (go to The crucial difference is that ICE is not requiring any fee (probably because ofthe lack of infrastructure to process fees as evidenced by the complexity to just pay the SEVIS I-901 fee).
2. How do I file an Appeal? 3. Who reviews my Appeal? 4. What are the requirements for tiling a Motion? 5. Hmv doT file a Motion to Reopen? 6. How do I file a Motion to Reconsider? 7. Who reviews my Motion? 8. Who may tile an Appeal or Motion?
9. Is there a fee for filing an Appeal or Motion?
• There is currently (as of 11/16/2011) no fee associated with filing either an appeal or motion.
10. How long do I have to tile a Motion? II. How long do I have to file an Appeal?
Page 3 of 4
(b)(7)e
(b)(7)e
ICE.12.2714.000499
12. Can l request additional time to file a Motion?
• No, but ICE may exercise its discretion to excuse a late Motion. So, you can file a late Motion and try to make a case to be excused through an exercise of discretion.
13. Can I request additional time to file an Appeal?
• Sort of, the petitioner may only request additional time to submit a brief in support of an appeal by checking the box on the Form I-290B requesting one thirty (30) day extension. The I-290B used to make that request musty itself be timely filed or face a potential summary dismissal or outright rejection as untimely. Depending on the reason for the underlying denial or withdrawal, the school could have to wait out a full year since the date of that underlying denial or withdrawal before it may re-file a new request for certification. ICE retains discretion to act sua sponte but may not excuse a late Appeal filing. ICE may only exercise discretion to excuse a late Motion. So, if you miss the appeal deadline, the appeal had better meet the requirenments of a Motion in order to be treated like one.
14. Where do I submit my Appeal or Motion?
• You may file your appeal or motion electronically by sending it to• The appeal or motion may also be faxed to: 703-603-3598.
15. Do [need an attornev to file an Appeal or Motion? 16. Do I alwavs have the option to file an Appeal? 17. If I decide not to file a Motion or Appeal, do I have any other options? 18. What new information can I provide on Appeal or Motion? 19. What happens if information on mv Form I-17 petition changes during the Appeal/Motion process'?
• A material modification to a Form 1-17 petition constitutes any change in information pertaining to any ofthe following categories listed in 8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(i):
• School officials should always immediately report changes to information on the Form 1-17 petition to SEVP. A school official may send an email to SAT at , and SCB at or SAOC at informing of changes made to the Form 1-17 during adjudication of the appeal or motion. Use these same e-mail addresses to report changes in contact information while blocked from updating via SEVIS.
20. How do I know the status ofmv Appeal or Motion? 21. How am 1 notified ofthe decision on Appeal or Motion? 22. How do 1 contact SAT if l have additional questions? 23. My Appeal was dismissed. do I have any other recourse?
• You may file a motion to reopen or reconsider the appeal decision with SAT. • See the document provided with your Notice of Appeal, "Information on Filing a Motion to
Reopen/Reconsider a Dismissal of an Appeal", for further instructions. • No further administrative appeal shall1ie from the dismissal of an appeal.
See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(2)(iii).
Page 4 of 4
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
ICE.12.2714.000500
Top Related