Student and Exchange Visitor Program: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:52, 24 May 2025

Latest revision as of 07:36, 25 May 2025

Line 32:

In the [[1993 World Trade Center bombing]], a [[truck bomb]] was detonated below the North Tower of the [[World Trade Center (1973–2001)|World Trade Center]] in [[New York City]]. In the aftermath of this incident, the student visa came under increased scrutiny when it was discovered that [[Eyad Ismoil]], one of the terrorists involved was in the United States on an expired student visa.<ref name="cis1">{{cite news | last = Suhler | first = Jayne Noble | author2 = Timms, Ed | title = Security worries putting spotlight on student visas | url = http://www.cis.org/articles/Katz/katz1999.html | work = [[The Dallas Morning News]] | date = September 20, 1998 | access-date = 2007-05-21 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070512122504/http://www.cis.org/articles/Katz/katz1999.html | archive-date = May 12, 2007 }}</ref><ref name="cis2">{{cite news | last = Suhler | first = Jayne Noble | author2 = Timms, Ed | title = Cases highlight flaws in federal visa system | url = http://www.cis.org/articles/Katz/katz1999.html | work = [[The Dallas Morning News]] | date = November 8, 1998 | access-date = 2007-05-21 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070512122504/http://www.cis.org/articles/Katz/katz1999.html | archive-date = May 12, 2007 }}</ref><ref name=shareok>{{cite web|url = https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/917/3187222.PDF?sequence=1|title = A Descriptive Case Study of the Impact of 9/11 on International Student Visa Policy in the 20 Months Following the Attacks|author = Mary Helen Reeves|access-date = February 10, 2016}}</ref><ref name=ins-fsp-report>{{cite web|url = https://oig.justice.gov/special/0205/chapter6.htm|title = CHAPTER SIX. THE INS'S FOREIGN STUDENT PROGRAM|date = May 20, 2002|access-date = February 10, 2016}}</ref>

A memorandum from the [[U.S. Department of Justice]]'s Office of Investigative Agency Policies to the Deputy Attorney General dated September 24, 1994, mentioned the need to subject foreign students to thorough and continuing scrutiny before and during their stay in the United States. On April 17, 1995, the Deputy Attorney General asked the Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS) Commissioner to address this issue. This led to the formation of an INS task force in June 1995 to conduct a comprehensive review of the F, M, and J visa processes. Besides the INS, the task force included members from the State Department and the United States Information Agency, and experts in the administration of international student programs.<ref name=ins-fsp-report/> The task force report, issued on December 22, 1995, identified problems in the tracking and monitoring of students by schools, problems in the certification of schools by the INS, and problems with INS receiving and maintaining up-to-date records from schools.<ref name=ins-fsp-report/> As a result of these findings, the [[Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996]] directed the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and conduct a program to collect certain information on nonimmigrant foreign students and exchange visitors from approved institutions of higher education and designated exchange visitor programs.<ref name=shareok/><ref name=ins-fsp-report/>

In June 1997, the INS launched a pilot program for a centralized electronic reporting system for institutions, called the Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students (CIPRIS). The CIPRIS pilot officially ended in October 1999, as the INS felt it had gathered enough data from the prototype to start working on the nationwide system.<ref name=ins-fsp-report/> The INS began working on a new system that would be called the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) with the associated information system called the Student and Exchange Visitor Information Service (SEVIS). During the rollout, CIPRIS and SEVIS met with considerable opposition from the [[NAFSA: Association of International Educators|Association of International Educators]] and the [[American Council on Education]]. However, they claimed that the opposition was not against the programs in principle but due to the concern that a botched rollout by the INS could result in many students suffering.<ref name=shareok/><ref name=ins-fsp-report/>