ice i-17 appeals foia release may 2012

(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:


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)


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


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.


(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


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)


SELF

INSTRUCTIONS:


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


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.


(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,



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.



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.


(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


IN RE: PETITIONER: WORLD CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY


section I0t(a)(15)(F)(i)ofthe Immigration and Nationality Aet, 8 U.S.C. §1101fa)(15)(F)(i)


INSTRUCTIONS:


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


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



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.


(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:



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. §


SELF-REPRKSENTED

INSTRUCTIONS:


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



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.


(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



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.


(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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


section 101 (a)(l 5)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)( 15)(F)(i)


SELF REPRESENTED

INSTRUCTIONS:


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



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).


(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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


(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


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


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


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


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


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

ice i-17 appeals foia release may 2012

Education

b7c b6

b7c b7e b6

b7cb7e b6

b7c b7eb6

b7c k2

b7c b7e b7eb6

b7e b7eice

exchange visitor programu