Institutional Roles, Responsibilities and Risk Assessment in Immigration Compliance Helen Konrad, McCandlish Holton Carrie O’Neill, George Washington University Virginia Underwood, Eastern Kentucky University SESSION 8H

Session Roadmap Review the relationship between university offices in immigration compliance. Assess risks – perceived and actual - in immigration compliance: Examples from the trenches. Recommend practices for educating core constituencies. See handout for additional practical guidance.

Competing Needs and Goals University offices with a role in immigration compliance: Admissions: Direct the admitted international students to the International Services Office for issuance of I-20. International Services Offices: Track and monitor the status of international students in SEVIS while complying with DOL, State, and DHS regulations. Provost/Academic Affairs: Manage the hiring and retention of foreign faculty. HR: Oversee I-9 compliance of students and faculty employed on campus. Export Control Office: Complete H-1B deemed export certifications. Career Services: Place students in internships during school and employment after graduation.

Identifying and Assessing the Institutional Risks Related to students: Unauthorized employment → I-9 violations. Reduced course load → ICE/SEVIS violations. Volunteer internships → Wage and Hour violations.

Related to Faculty: Was search compliant? Print v. online. Did selected applicant qualify for position advertised? If not compliant: Cost of new search. Potential that applicant is not most qualified. Risk of losing/not retaining selected faculty. Identifying and Assessing the Institutional Risks

Related to Staff: Basic Labor Certification Expanded advertising requirements. “Minimally Qualified” standard. Cost of new search. “Some teaching duties” to get to “most qualified.” Identifying and Assessing the Institutional Risks

Position Offered: Director of Housing Information Systems. Job Requirements: MS Computer Science or related field plus five years of experience. Search: Committee recommends former student from India, who holds Ph.D. plus three years experience at XYZ plus two years experience as interim Director of Housing Information Systems. Offer: V.P. Student Affairs sends offering the permanent position and agrees to proceed to pursue permanent residence “through the fastest option possible.” University Policy: Will not sponsor staff for permanent residence or pay for any portion of self-sponsored filings. Hypothetical Scenario #1: Permanent Residence Promised

Perceived vs. Actual Risks – Roles to Resolve Is University bound by promise to pursue PR? If University agrees to make an exception to sponsor, is it obligated to pursue “fastest option possible”? How does difficulty recruiting a position impact decision-making? How should exception be viewed in terms of other Departments’ hiring practices?

Hypothetical Scenario #2: On-line Wages vs. PWD “Safe Harbor” Department recommends international faculty hire at $80,000. International Services Office processes H-1B: days to get PW determination; University policy has always been to obtain PWD; Likely PW based on job requirements is $65,000; Start date not likely to be met if wait for PWD; Will have to pay $1,225 additional fee for premium processing.

Perceived and Actual Risks – Roles to Resolve If file H-1B before PW comes back, risk a potential for back pay. If wait to file until PW comes back to eliminate risk of backpay, virtually guarantee additional cost to university through premium processing and alternate faculty arrangements. How should these risks be balanced? Does it matter that institutions have always done the PWD in the past (can you mix-n-match)?

Hypothetical Scenario #3: Curricular Practical Training – “Integral to Curriculum” ABD Ph.D. Student in Statistics comes to International Student Office with offer letter from NIH to “perform research” at no pay; Department submits a letter in support explaining how research is related to curriculum; Student wants CPT authorization.

Perceived and Actual Risks – Roles to Resolve What facts should be considered in assessing CPT request? How much deference should International Office give to Department’s letter of support? Does it matter that it is not for pay? Who should decide whether to proceed?

Summary from Hypos: Immigration compliance is rarely black and white. University has much discretion in defining institutional practices.

Recommended Practices for Effective Decision- Making Communication: Evaluate areas where University has discretion within Immigration Compliance. Define institutional practices for these areas. Structure Internal advisory committee. Designation of key individuals in Academic Affairs, HR, Deans’ offices, and in GC.

Questions?