That’s why New York Assemblyman Nick Perry; U.S. Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, the lone Black woman in the State’s Congressional delegation; and the American Families United, an immigration advocate want the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to go ahead with a planned change to the rules so that families wouldn’t be separated as they pursue the final stages of getting a green card.

“The situation as it stands isn’t good for families and therefore should be changed without having to wait on the U.S. Congress,” said Perry, the Deputy Majority Leader in the State Assembly in Albany. “Once you leave the country to get the promised green card you put yourself in jeopardy by having the U.S. consular officer in your country finding some reason not to grant you the visa and therefore prevent you from getting back to your family, despite all that you have done to merit the green card. It’s a big decision, forcing people to remain undocumented or take the chance and go back. Many have decided not to take the trip back home because of the threat of not being allowed to return to the United States.”

Actually, the Department of Homeland Security in general and the Citizenship and Immigration Services in particular are planning to change the set of procedures by which illegal immigrants with American families that have applied for the immigration waiver wouldn’t have to leave. The Obama Administration wants avoid the scenario Perry described, by allowing immigrants to receive waiver which, in effect, would allow them to change their status without dealing with uncertainty of not coming back immediately.

Under present rules American citizens are entitled to apply for a green card for their spouses or children but once approved for a green card they must leave the country to get it. But there is a catch-22 situation. Once they have left the U.S. they are automatically barred from returning for at least three years and for as long as 10 years. The Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, unit of the Department of Homeland Security can issue a waiver that would allow people to return before the statute-barred period of three to- 10 years expires. But some parents and children who have left the country hoping to get the green light to return have been prevented from doing so, forcing them to be separated from their families for extended periods of time.

In January, the Department of Homeland Security published a formal notice in the Federal Register, announcing that the Obama Administration intended to remove that burden by granting the waiver in the United States before anyone leaves the country. In effect, once the waiver is granted, the applicant would know he or she would be allowed to rejoin their families.

The CIS opened the process for public comment before it acts without Congressional approval and that period expires next month.
“What we are saying is that people should act quickly and let their voices be heard,” said Randall Emery, President of American Families United. “We have appealed to the Department of Homeland Security to go ahead with the proposed rule change and make life easier for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who would benefit from it. We have asked the Department to implement the changes without delay.

We have also asked the Department to allow people to appeal a decision if there is a denial of a waiver application. As a practical matter the denial of provisional waiver would be equivalent of a denial of a final waiver. That’s why people should be given an opportunity to file an appeal. The bottom line is that we are asking the Department to move on this without any further delay.”

Assemblyman Perry, himself a Caribbean immigrant who has been in the legislature for at least 20 years said that everything should be done to remove the “uncertainty about being able to return to the U.S. as quickly as possible. Of course, it should be removed. It would make life so much easier for families.”

That’s the real purpose of the proposed change by the Obama Administration. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIS Director, said when the reform becomes a fact of life, a burden would be relieved.
“We are achieving system efficiency, saving resources for the taxpayers and reducing the time of separation between a spouse or child and the U.S. citizen relative,” said Mr. Mayorkas.

Congresswoman Clarke believes the proposed change by the White House would be crucial given the atmosphere in Washington, with the Republicans opposing immigration reform.
“Comprehensive immigration reform is unlikely to be approved this year that is before the November election” she said.

Source:http://www.nycaribnews.com/news.php?viewStory=1899

In a stinging report, Charles K Edwards charged that the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has given “mixed messages” about the expansion of the programme, known as Secure Communities.
He said this resulted in direct “opposition, criticism and resistance in some locations”.

Edwards included in his report a chronological roster of what he deemed to be misstatements and conflicting documents issued by ICE officials — including the director, John Morton — about whether states have the option in adhering to the program.

The Inspector General said while ICE indicated during 2009 and 2010 that the programme was voluntary, officials eventually settled on the position that states could not withdraw.

The report found that the officials failed to set clear policies internally and “missed opportunities” to clarify the situation.
Confused by what they perceived were mixed signals from ICE, several state governors, including Illinois, Massachusetts and New York, expressed interest in withdrawing from Secure Communities.

Many immigrant groups have also expressed outrage about the programme, claiming that it merciless results in the deportation of illegal Caribbean persons, without criminal records, and breaks up immigrant families.

Under the programme, the fingerprints of arrested immigrants are checked against Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and Department of Homeland Security records.

Nicole Navas, an ICE spokeswoman, said that the agency had taken “aggressive steps” during the past year in providing clearer guidance about Secure Communities.
While acknowledging that the Homeland Security Department has made communications missteps about the programme, Secretary Janet Napolitano said officials were in the final stages of preparing new guidelines to govern Secure Communities, as Edwards recommended.;
In light of the report, Sarahi Uribe, of the National Day Labourers Organising Network, has joined several immigrant groups in calling for the annulment of the program.
“In an attempt to justify the programme, the reports inadvertently admit that ICE has mutated S-Comm (Secure Communities) into an overreaching dragnet,” she said.

Source:http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/US-accused-of-creating-confusion-in-Caribbean-immigrant-programme

A statement from the Public Affairs Section of the Embassy in Accra said the fees for most non-immigrant visa applications and Border Crossing Cards would increase, while all immigrant visa processing fees would decrease.

The Department is required to recover, as far as possible, the cost of processing visas through the collection of application fees.

For some reasons, the current fees no longer cover the actual cost of processing non-immigrant visas.

It said the non-immigrant visa fee increase would support the addition and expansion of overseas facilities, as well as additional staffing required to meet increased visa demand.

“Although most categories of non-immigrant visa processing fees will increase, the fee for E visas (treaty-traders and treaty-investors) and K visas (for fiancé (e)s of US citizens) will decrease.

The statement said the non-immigrant visa processing fees are as follows: Tourist, Business, Transit, Crew Member, Student, Exchange Visitor, and Journalist visas increases from $140 to $160.

Petition-Based visas (H, L, O, P, Q, and R) from $150 to $190.

Treaty Investor and Trader visas (E) reduced from $390 to $270; Finance (e) visas (K) from $350 to $240; Border Crossing Cards (age 15 and older) increased from $140 to $160; Border Crossing Cards (under age 15) from $14 to $15.

The statement said because of re-allocation of costs associated with immigrant visas, all categories of immigrant visa processing fees will decrease therefore, immigrant visa processing fees are; Immediate Relative and Family Preference Applications from $330 to $230; Employment-Based Applications from $720 to $405; Other Immigrant Visa Applications from $305 to $220; Diversity Visa Programme Fee from $440 to $330; Determining Returning Resident Status from $380 to $275.

It said the proposed fees were published in the Federal Register on Monday, and would take effect in 15 days.

To view the interim final rule, visit www.regulations.gov.

The statement said comments would be accepted until 60 days after publication, at that time, the Department would consider the public comments, and the published final rule would include the Department’s response to any comments received.

It said fee information might be found on the Bureau of Consular Affairs website, travel.state.gov, and on the websites of US embassies and consulates.**

Source:http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/artikel.php?ID=234788

Last week, the US State Department posted the notification of the increased fees for the processing of visas, stated that although most categories of non immigrant visa processing fees will increase, the fee for E-visas (treaty-traders and treaty-investors) and K visas (for fiancé(e)s of US citizens) will decrease.”

Alexander McLaren, Public Affairs Officer at the US Embassy in Port of Spain , said yesterday the Bureau of Consular Affairs is required by law to recover the cost of processing non immigrant visas through the collection of visa application fees.
“Certain categories of non immigrant visas cost more to process than other categories of non immigrant visas. The new fees reflect the costs of each visa service. Items that impact the cost of visa processing includes an increase in the number of visas processed or new regulations requiring additional security screening. Also included are costs of major department initiatives, particularly those relating to meeting the increased demand for non immigrant visas “.

He said the increase is based on US law, and requires that the Consular Offices recover the cost of processing non immigrant visas through visa application fees.
The US Department of State said “For a number of reasons, the current fees no longer cover the actual cost of processing non immigrant visas. The non immigrant visa fee increase will support the addition and expansion of overseas facilities, as well as additional staffing required to meet increased visa demand” said McLaren.

—Source: US Embassy, Port of Spain

Increase structure Nonimmigrant Visa Processing Fees Type of Visa Previous Fee New Fee Tourist, Business, Transit, Crew Member, Student, Exchange Visitor, and Journalist visas US$140 US$160 Petition-Based visas (H, L, O, P, Q, and R) US$150 US$190 Treaty Investor and Trader visas (E) US$390 US$270 Fiancé(e) visas (K) US$350 US$240 Border Crossing Cards (age 15 and older) US$140 US$160 Border Crossing Cards (under age 15) US$14 US$15 Because of a reallocation of costs associated with immigrant visas, all categories of immigrant visa processing fees will decrease. Immigrant Visa Processing Fees Type of Visa Previous Fee New Fee Previous Fee New Fee Immediate Relative and Family Preference Applications US$330 US$230 Employment-Based Applications US$720 US$405 Other Immigrant Visa Applications US$305 US$220 Diversity Visa Program Fee US$440 US$330 Determining Returning Resident Status US$380 US$275

Source:http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/US_visa_fees_set_to_increase-145866355.html

The protesters rallied in front of Baruch College, where the CUNY Board of Trustees voted in favor of the proposed increases. The vote means an initial $300 increase and $300 more per year for five more years after that. Tuition will increase from $4,800 in 2011 to $6,330 by 2015.

Junior Lorenzo Davis said the increase may force him to drop out of school and head back home to Jamaica.

“I just can’t afford that amount. That’s the reason why I came here was because I can afford it. I heard it’s a credible school. And now it’s going up. I’m thinking of finding another school to go to,” Davis told CBS 2′s Hazel Sanchez.

Davis said he already struggles to pay $5,700 per semester with his job at Kmart.

Other City University students also said it’s a tough lesson in economics and one they find hard to swallow.

Vicky Checo said her part-time job and her father’s salary as a janitor are not enough to pay $9,000 a year for her education. She said the tuition increase is killing her future.

Read more http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/28/students-plan-another-demonstration-at-baruch-college-to-protest-planned-tuition-hike/

The society was happy and relieved because migration was a vent for surplus labour. This release of unemployed labour has been a direct consequence of the failure of the Jamaican economy to provide employment for all of its labour force. It also stemmed from the subsistence wages which many of the employed were forced to accept.

The ‘Brawn Drain’ was seen as beneficial for the economy, but the ‘Brain Drain’ was regarded as retarding economic development by depriving the economy of scarce skills.

In the 21st century, the critical determinant of economic success is the quantity and quality of human resources. Jamaica, therefore, cannot afford to lose any of its skilled human resources, given the paltry state of the Jamaican economy. The idea to keep, train, and retain in productive activity the maximum amount of human resources must be a central plank of economic policy.

Jamaica has been training a sufficient quantity of skilled human resources but we have not been able to retain an adequate number of them.

One reason for that is the migration of people in search of employment and/or higher remuneration. This is inevitable in a world with much richer countries in need of young, skilled workers, eg the United States. But we are failing to attract Jamaicans abroad to return home, and therefore, despite remittances, their contribution is lost to Jamaica.

Ironically, the vast majority of Jamaicans abroad want to return to their homeland. But when many of them attempt to do so they are either discouraged by their fellow Jamaicans, or are faced with the hardships of living here.

However, the real negative push factor they face is the vicious animosity of their fellow Jamaicans who subject returnees to many unpleasant acts, including robbery.

The facts are not in dispute. What, though, explains this antagonistic behaviour? First is jealousy, the most pandemic of human emotions spawned by resentment that Jamaicans who lived and worked abroad come back economically better off.

There is, too, an entrenched feeling that with more Jamaicans returning home, the more people will have to share scarce resources like land. This, of course, is arrant nonsense, because returnees enlarge the economic pie with their skills, experience, and capital.

Then there is the misguided view that once a Jamaican goes abroad to live and/or work, he or she is somehow no longer a “true” Jamaican. The departure is subconsciously viewed as an act of betrayal and the sojourn in foreign lands is assumed to contaminate them. They are derided in the same vein as the “Colon man” in the old folk song.

Ironically, the overseas Jamaicans and those who return home are among the most patriotic, hard-working, and law-abiding citizens. In many cases, they give back to this country beyond measure. Proof of that is in the stories of this year’s nominees for the Observer Business Leader Award.

It is not asking too much, we believe, to welcome our fellow Jamaicans back home when they decide to return.

Source: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, including thousands from Arizona, have been deported under the program over the past several years. Called stipulated removal, it allows the government to quickly deport illegal immigrants held in detention centers as long as they forgo a hearing before a judge to review their legal rights and to determine if they want to fight their case.

The phaseout follows controversies and concerns.

Immigration officials hailed the program as cost-effective deportations for people who wanted to go home. Critics worried that the government was strong-arming immigrants to accept deportation without regard for their due-process rights.

Immigration officials changed course in September 2010 after a federal appellate court ruled that an immigrant held in an Eloy detention center had his rights violated. After that, speedy removals were offered only to illegal immigrants with lawyers, who could help them fight their cases. Lawyers are not provided at taxpayer expense in deportation proceedings.

Since then, immigration officials have not deported a single illegal immigrant through the program in Arizona, said Vincent Picard, a spokesman for ICE in Phoenix. Picard could not provide statistics for other states.

ICE officials did not publicize the dramatic policy change. Many immigrant lawyers and critics of the program were unaware the change had been made.

Time and money

In a deportation proceeding, an illegal immigrant has the right to appear in front of an immigration judge to decide whether to contest the case. The immigrant also has the right to hire a lawyer.

But under stipulated removal, an immigrant who doesn’t want to fight deportation gives up the right to a hearing. The immigrant also gives up the right to an appeal. Once the immigrant agrees to those stipulations, the judge signs a deportation order, even if the immigrant is not in the courtroom.

Supporters of stipulated removal, which remains in effect in other parts of the country, say it benefits both the government and illegal immigrants. The program can save time and money.

The illegal immigrant is typically deported within a day or two. In comparison, an illegal immigrant facing deportation can spend weeks or even months in detention. In 2011, the average time was 29 days, according to ICE statistics.

The average daily cost of detention in 2011 was $112.83, said Virginia Kice, an ICE spokeswoman.

“Such agreements between ICE and the alien are advantageous to the government in that it relieves the immigration court of the need to have a hearing, saves ICE additional detention costs, and allows the alien to return to his/her country expeditiously,” Picard said in an e-mail.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that favors strict immigration enforcement, said the program should be expanded, not scaled back.

Offering stipulated removal only to immigrants who hire their own lawyers bogs down the judicial process and defeats the purpose of the program: to quickly remove illegal immigrants with no legal grounds to remain in the U.S. who want to go home, Vaughan said. It also clogs up immigration courts, making less room for immigrants with strong legal cases to remain in the U.S.

“I see the greater use of stipulated removal as expediting the inevitable, with the result being swifter access to hearings for the people who are more likely to benefit from them,” she said.

Phillip Crawford, a former field director for ICE’s enforcement and removal operations in Arizona, said it is a shame that stipulated removals have been curtailed.

The program, he said, had several levels of “safeguards” to ensure that the rights of illegal immigrants were protected and that participants understood what they were signing. Each case was reviewed by ICE officers during processing at detention centers, by ICE prosecutors and by an immigration judge who has the power to reject the deportation if the judge believes the immigrant had legal grounds to remain.

He also said the program targeted illegal immigrants from Mexico convicted of aggravated felonies with little chance of legally remaining in the U.S.

“It was an excellent program,” Crawford said.

Rights protected?

Critics say stipulated removal circumvents immigrants’ rights and largely targeted immigrants who had not committed crimes.

A 30-page report released in September by the National Immigration Law Center accused government officials of pressuring illegal immigrants to accept quick deportation by threatening long detention stays if they tried to fight to remain in the U.S. The government also often didn’t provide adequate interpretation and translation to immigrants who didn’t speak English, the report said.

The report found that 80 percent of those deported through the program hadn’t committed crimes.

The report also found that 96 percent of those deported didn’t have lawyers. Therefore, the report concluded, many of those without criminal records may have been eligible to remain in the U.S. if they had had a chance to fight their case.

Instead of deportation, the non-criminals also may have qualified for less-severe voluntary departure, which gives immigrants the chance to return to the U.S. if they qualify for a green card, said Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the Law Center. Instead, by accepting stipulated removal, immigrants are generally barred from coming back to the U.S. for as long as 10 years and face felony charges for illegally re-entering the country.

The report was based on 20,000 government documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Tumlin said she was unaware that ICE had stopped offering stipulated removals to immigrants unless they had a lawyer. The Arizona Republic discovered the new policy in September, when it began examining the Law Center report.

“If that’s true, it would be welcome news,” Tumlin said.

The change, she said, alleviates concerns that the quick removals were violating the due-process rights of illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants placed in deportation proceedings can sometimes fight their case in court if they meet certain conditions, such as having resided in the U.S. for a long period of time, having no criminal record and having children born in this country.

Evolving program

Launched in 1995 to help alleviate overcrowding in federal, state and local detention centers, the stipulated-removal program was rarely used until President George W. Bush’s administration began ramping up immigration enforcement in 2004. The high rate continued during the first two years of President Barack Obama’s administration. According to ICE, 32,635 people were deported in 2010.

From 2004 to 2010, immigration officials deported more than 160,000 under the program, according to the National Immigration Law Center’s September report.

The report found that more than 24,000 came from the detention center in Eloy, the highest number of any facility in the country.

Internal government e-mails obtained through the Freedom of Information lawsuit and posted online by the National Immigration Law Center show that in 2005 alone, 5,787 illegal immigrants from Mexico detained in Eloy were deported through the program and that stipulated removals accounted for more than 50 percent of all deportations at the center.

In September 2010, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that immigration officials at Eloy had violated the rights of Isaac Ramos. Ramos, an illegal immigrant from Mexico with prior criminal convictions, had agreed to stipulated removal while being detained in Eloy in 2006. The court ruled that the government failed to make it clear to Ramos that he was giving up his right to talk to a lawyer, who could have explained the process and the penalties. The court also ruled that the immigration judge who signed Ramos’ deportation order failed to determine if Ramos had agreed to stipulated removal “voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently,” as required.

Ramos, who is married to a legal permanent resident and has two U.S.-citizen children, had argued that he should be allowed to return to the U.S. since his rights to due process were violated. The court, however, denied that request.

Since backing away from using stipulated removal, ICE has worked out a different approach in Arizona, Picard said.

Illegal immigrants who do not have legal representation and do not want to contest their cases are given the option of attending “prompt hearings,” Picard said.

Held in front of immigration judges, the hearings ensure that immigrants facing deportation are advised of their “full array” of rights under the law, he said. Immigration judges also confirm that the immigrants are aware of any possibility to legally remain in the U.S.

“Only if the judge is satisfied that the aliens are removable under the charges filed against them, and are making a knowing and intelligent waiver of their rights, will the judge order their removal,” Picard said.
Source:http://www.azcentral.com

Rather, it has always been one of postcard beauty with white sands, clear crystal water beaches and coconut trees swaying away in the distance. But Stelios Christopoulos, the charge d’ affairs at the European Union delegation in Trinidad and Tobago, noted this week that the Caribbean has “continued to attract large numbers” of undocumented migrants from poorer countries.

“Today, everybody understands the need for managed migration, which is reflected in the growing number of meetings as well as increasing time allocation in international and intra-regional meetings to discuss strategies to respond to the challenges of migration,” Christopoulos said.

The EU official acknowledged that analysis of Caribbean migration patterns is hampered by the lack of reliable data, and welcomed a pilot project involving 12 countries from the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) grouping that is aimed helping national and regional institutions in the collection, management and analysis of migration data for the development of appropriate policies.

“This is why I think the ACP Observatory on Migration is important,” he told delegates from ACP countries attending the ACP Observatory on Migration workshop that ends here on Friday. “It will help to improve data collection in the Caribbean and therefore guide policy strategies,” he added.

The ACP Observatory on Migration is an initiative of the ACP Secretariat that is being implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in a consortium with 15 partners and funded by the European Union.

The director of the ACP Observatory on Migration, Laurent De Boeck, said that the “trainings provide data collection mechanisms on migration issues that are increasingly affecting pilot countries and regions”.

“Data collection is an essential process for the development of comprehensive policies in ACP countries,” he added.

The project is designed to produce data on South-South ACP migration for migrants, civil society and policy makers and to enhance the research capacities of ACP countries for improvement of the migrants’ situation and the strengthening of the migration-development nexus.

Trinidad and Tobago and Haiti are the only two Caribbean countries engaged in the pilot programme. The others are Angola, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, Timor-Leste and Tanzania.

Similar workshops have already been held in Senegal and Timor Leste, and the organizers said the training will focus on labour migration, irregular migration, gender and human rights.

Jennifer Boucard-Blake, the permanent secretary at the ministry of national security here, said that by agreeing to host the international workshop, Port of Spain has signaled its desire to be an effective partner in dealing with the many issues surrounding migration, which she noted is “a phenomenon that affects every region of the world”.

“Interestingly enough, experts in this field have observed that there are fewer international migrants moving from developing to developed countries than those who move from one developing country to another – that is, South-South,” she said.

She said that data collected through proper migration management can reveal the positive and negative aspects of migration.

“Migrants have the ability to make economies grow and can contribute to human development in both home and host countries. They can enrich societies through the promotion of cultural diversity, the fostering of understanding and respect among peoples.

“On the other hand, migrant data can also reveal the extent to which migration, irregular or otherwise, impacts on society. Migrants can place unnecessary pressure on key services such as schools, health and transport,” she added.

Christopoulos also referenced the brain drain aspect of migration.

“Many countries suffer tremendous constraints in their capacities to provide equal, qualitative and affordable social services to their populations. They also suffer from a big gap between wealth and development. It is estimated that around 70 percent of the migrants from the Caribbean to OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) are tertiary education graduates,” he said.

Even as the Caribbean grouping CARICOM is moving to implement its Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) that will be characterised by the free movement of goods, skills, services and labour, only free movement of labor, such as university graduates, artists, musicians, media workers and athletes, has been implemented thus far by most of the 15-member states.

Research has shown that emigration from the Caribbean occurred in two waves, with the first starting during the post-World War Two economic boom resulting in labour shortages for skilled and semi-skilled jobs in Western countries.

The second wave that occurred in the late 1970s and 1980s was as a result of an increase in the demand for service workers and professionals in North America as well as a social decline in Caribbean countries.

Despite very little data being available on the inflows and outflows from Caribbean countries, Christopoulos said, “What we do know, however, (is that) the Caribbean has one of the largest diasporic communities in the world, in proportion to the population.”

The top labor-exporting countries are Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica and Guyana, with EU statistics indicating that migration from the Caribbean is mainly toward the United States, Canada and Britain.

Figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) show that remittances as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) comprise 13 percent, making the region the world’s largest recipient of remittances as a percentage of GDP.

Source:http://www.caribbeanlifenews.com

If you already know what you want to do, the first step is to apply to a school in the United States. The school must be an SEVP approved school. Click link below to view schools: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/ApprovedSchools.pdf.

Once you are accepted to an SEVP approved school, your school will give you a document called a Form I-20.  The Form I-20 is a paper record of your information in our database called SEVIS. Each school that accepts you will mail you a Form I-20.  Before you apply for your visa, you must select one school’s Form I-20.

Check your Form I-20 against your passport information to make sure that your name and date of birth (DOB) are correctly listed and spelled.  If it is not correct, contact the school official who sent you the Form 1-20.Once you have your Form I-20, you are ready for the next step – paying your SEVIS I-901 fee.

2.      How do I pay my SEVIS I-901 fee?

The SEVIS I-901 fee is required for all F and M students as well as J exchange visitors. Paying your SEVIS I-901 fee is very important. Without this fee, you will not be eligible to apply for a visa.

Make sure your Form I-20 information matches that on your SEVIS I-901 fee form.

I-901 SEVIS Fee for F, M, and J Nonimmigrant Students and Exchange Visitors

I-901 SEVIS Fee for Visa Exempt Students and Exchange Visitors from Canada and Selected British Subject Residents

I-901 SEVIS FEE: Payment Options for Exchange Visitors and Exchange Visitors Program Sponsors

FMJfee.com – This is the website to pay the SEVIS I-901 fee.

 3.      How do I get a visa to enter the United States?

After paying the I-901 fee and getting a receipt, you can apply for a visa at any American embassy or consulate before you leave for the United States. The following links will assist with this process: http://travel.state.gov.

Check to see that you received the right type of visa. Are you name and date of birth also correct?

4.      How should I prepare for my trip to the United States?

Before you leave for the United States, it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the different kinds of documents you might need. It is always a good idea to carry your original documents at all times. Do not put them in your checked baggage.

It is also a good idea to make at least two sets of copies of these documents: one copy to leave with your family or friends before you depart and one copy to give to your school officials.

 5.      What should I do when I arrive?

Arriving in the United States is a very important step, which you should to prepare for. If you have everything ready, it should be a very smooth experience.

What is Secondary Inspection?

If the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer at the port of entry cannot initially verify your information, or if you do not have all of the required documentation, you may be directed to an interview area known as “secondary inspection.” Secondary inspection allows inspectors to conduct additional research in order to verify information without causing delays for other arriving passengers.

The inspector will first attempt to verify your status by using the Student and Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS). In the event that the CBP officer needs to verify information with your school or program, we strongly recommend that you have the name and telephone number of the designated school official (DSO) at your school. In the event you arrive during non-business hours (evening, weekends, holidays), you should also have an emergency or non-business hour phone number available for this official.

Failure to comply with U.S. government entry-exit procedures may result in your being denied entry to the United States. Under certain circumstances, the CBP officer may issue a “Notice to Student or Exchange Visitor” Form (I-515A), which authorizes temporary admission into the United States. Work with your school without delay to submit the proper documentation required by the Form I-515A.

The port of entry gave me a Form I-515A. What does that mean?

Form I-515A Tool Kit will help to ensure a smooth travel experience for International Students and Exchange Visitors.

NSEERS – Some individuals may be asked to provide additional information under the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). A packet of information will be available at the port of entry explaining the registration procedure.

6.      When do I have to report to my school?

You have 30 days to enter the country before your official program start date, which is registered in SEVIS by an official at your school. You must report to your school by your program start date, or you are not maintaining your statu. We suggest that you contact your school immediately once you enter the country so that there is no question of your arrival.

If you cannot enter the United States for the term listed on your Form I-20 or if you will be late by a few days, immediately contact your school officials so that they can accurately reflect this information in your SEVIS record.

7.      What are my benefits? Can I work or drive in the United States?

 As an F or M student, you may be eligible for benefits when you are in the United States. Some of these benefits are working, getting a Social Security number, training after your program is completed (OPT – optional practical training), and getting a driver’s license.

If you are an F student, you have the option of working in the United States by doing practical training during your program or after it ends. Click on one of the links below for more information.

Optional Practical Training (OPT) – http://www.ice.gov/sevis/students/opt.htm

Curricular Practical Training (CPT) – http://www.ice.gov/sevis/students/cpt.htm

8.      Maintaining Status.

As an F or M student, you will often hear the phrase “maintaining status” because it is very important! Maintaining status means that you are doing everything you are supposed to do to keep your records up-to-date in our SEVIS database.

9.      Problems? What happens if…

If you are having an immediate problem and need assistance quickly, please speak with your designated school official (DSO) or responsible officer (RO). If that person cannot help you, feel free to contact the SEVP Response Center (SRC) at 1 (703) 603-3400 or at SEVP@dhs.gov.

10.  Departure:

If you have completed your program, you have a number of options:

Change program levels – For example, you can apply to a graduate program after you finish your bachelor’s.

Transfers – You can transfer to a different program at the same school or another school.

You may participate in optional practical training (OPT) which allows you to work in the United States after your program end date. Change to a B or other visa classification. Please visit U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for more information.

Source: http://www.ice.gov/sevis/students/

There are actually two ways to become a US citizen. You can become a US citizen by being born in the United States or to parents who are United States citizens. This is a way to secure US citizenship automatically through birth. If you are not born as a US citizen, you can still go through the legal process of applying for US citizenship (Form N400) to become a citizen by naturalization.

For further information visit:http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a32