Tag: Fee

  • How to design an international student tuition fee levy

    How to design an international student tuition fee levy

    “The Government will explore introducing a levy on higher education provider income from international students, to be reinvested into the higher education and skills system. Further details will be set out in the Autumn Budget.”

    35 words that have put the sector into a spin, spun out tens of thousands of words of analysis and rebuttal, and set into motion a shared panic that the government is not only going to reduce the number of international students but tax the students that universities manage to recruit.

    Design

    The only things that we know about the levy is that the government has used a six per cent tax on international fees as an “illustrative example” in its technical annex, the government assumes this cost would be passed on to international students, and that passing on these costs will depress international student numbers by around 7,000. In terms of the levy design there is the promise that the money will be ringfenced for higher education and skills but which parts and how is not defined. It is of course also not guaranteed.

    The sector’s response has been to point out that reducing the number of international students and devaluing the unit of resource they bring with them will put additional financial pressure on universities. The impact will also be uneven with the largest recruiters of international students paying the highest levy.

    The government has made a hugely consequential policy signal with no details, scant impact assessment, and no analysis of the consequences. However, if a levy of some form is going to happen the sector should think carefully about which kinds of levy they believe would be preferable. Not all levies are built equally.

    Australia

    The idea for a levy seems to have come from the Australian Universities Accord. The UK government does not seem to have noticed that the idea was heavily edited and caveated in the final report but in the interim report it was noted that:

    The Review notes various submissions support establishing a specific fund that could be used for future infrastructure needs, as well other national priorities. This could include consideration of a levy on international student fee income. The use of this revenue for sectoral-wide priorities could reflect the collaborative nature of the sector in building a strong and enduring system. The Review notes further examination is required, including consideration of some level of co-investment from governments.

    There is a little bit more detail here but not much. Like the UK version the fund would be hypothecated toward higher education and used to fund things on a system wide basis. The politics on the face of it appear progressive that the institutions that benefit most from private capital, the flow of international students, pay a proportion of it back to fund public goods in the wider higher education system. The less progressive element is that international students pay once to their institution, they would then pay a levy which their provider would pass on to them in increased fees, and they then prop up an education system of a nation in which they are not permanently resident.

    The University of Melbourne did some follow up work looking at the implications of such a levy. Some of the issues they picked up are whether this would be a levy on all international students in all kinds of education, whether it is reasonable to distribute funding from high income to low income institutions, whether the idea of a levy in and of itself would dampen demand, and whether the impact of taxing income from individual providers is more harmful than the collective benefits they may receive from a shared fund.

    Depending how the government chooses to apply its levy we would expect to see very different results. An Australian model which redistributes funding from the wealthiest institution to the least wealthy would have a very different set of consequences to a levy which took a six per cent flat tax and put it into a general fund for infrastructure. It feels odd within a market based higher education system to make one provider dependent on the success of another. It also feels odd to make international students who are studying at a specific institution responsible for the health of the wider sector.

    Some would see an intra-university levy as a recognition that the success of the system is the success of each provider. Some would see it as an unjustifiable tax on the most financially successful institutions.

    New Zealand

    Australia’s Antipodean partner already has a form of student levy.

    New Zealand’s Export Education Levy is charged as a proportion of the fee international fee-paying students pay to their providers. Depending on the kind of institution this is charged at between .5 per cent and .89 per cent of tuition fees.

    The levy has a direct relationship between funders and beneficiaries. Although it is a tax on learners, and by extension a tax on providers, the funding is used for the development of the export education sector, a recovery scheme should a provider be unable to continue teaching, the administration of the international element of The Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and InternationalLearners) Code of Practice 2021 (this includes a range of safety, wellbeing and advice support), and the funding of the International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme (a scheme for students to resolve disputes with their providers on contracts and financial issues.)

    This system has been in place with some variations and the occasional suspension since 2002. The international education system is much smaller in New Zealand than the UK and the amount of funding the levy raises is modest at close to three million dollars in 2022/23. The model in operation here is a relatively small tax to fund things which providers have a shared interest in. It’s not a direct cash transfer between providers but a collective pot to reinvest into the economic commodity of international education. The scheme was suspended during COVID-19 as a measure to support the sector, so its financial impacts are clearly not negligible, but post COVID-19 international enrolments are recovering strongly. Whether they would have recovered even more strongly without a levy is impossible to know.

    This is a light-touch, shared endeavour, we all should have some investment in international education, kind of a levy and it is not the only levy New Zealand has.

    The Student Service Levy is a fee applied to all student fees to fund non-academic services. The University of Auckland surveys students every year on what they would like their fees to be spent on and in 2024, in descending order by amount, funding was spent on sports, recreation and cultural activities, counselling services and pastoral care, health services, child care services, clubs and societies, careers advice, legal advice, financial advice, and media.

    This is a general levy but the principle has broader applications. It would be entirely possible to levy international student fees to pay for non-academic services. For example, university access budgets are effectively paid for by a levy on fees. This system seems fairer in some ways than a general levy. The place where a student studies is the primary beneficiary of their fees. From a policy perspective it would allow the government to move institutional behaviour toward things they care about by stipulating what the fee could be spent on. However, given that international student fees subsidy much of university work already it would again feel like they are paying twice. Additionally, if providers didn’t have to redistribute their funding on a national basis the providers with the most international students would be able to spend the most on non-academic elements.

    Where else

    It is also worth stating the government’s proposed levy would not function like the Apprenticeship Levy. The Apprenticeship Levy is a tax on employer’s payroll but employers are able to access the funds they contribute to spend on apprenticeships with any underspend clawed back by the government. Plainly, if government allowed providers to access the fees they contribute to the levy for the education of their own students there would be no point in having a levy in the first place beyond giving universities the political coverage to raise fees. Presumably, not an outcome the government is intending.

    The argument against a levy of international student fees will dominate the sector for months to come. Should a levy come to pass universities would be well disposed to think of which kinds of levy they might prefer. A model which redistributes funding across providers and if so which providers and for what projects. A model which internally redistributes funding toward student support. Or, likely the least popular, a model which allows the government to reinvest the funding broadly and perhaps outside of higher education.

    In making the case of the harm a levy could cause the sector may also win over more sympathy if it can explain which kinds of levies in which places have what kinds of effects depending on how they are applied. A levy may generally be a bad idea but some versions are much more harmful than others.

    Source link

  • Plotting the impact of an international fee levy

    Plotting the impact of an international fee levy

    There’s not many in the higher education sector that would have welcomed any part of the recent immigration white paper.

    The reduction in the graduate route time limit would have been difficult enough. The BCA changes to duties on providers in order to sponsor international students will cause many problems. The possibility of financial penalties linked to asylum claims for those on student visas was as unexpected as it is problematic.

    But it is the levy that has really attracted the ire of UK higher education.

    The best form of defence

    On one level it is simply a tax – on the income from international student fees, which is one of a vanishingly few places from which universities can cross-subsidise loss-making activity like research and teaching UK-domiciled students.

    Yes, the funds raised are promised variously to “skills and higher education” or just “skills”, and the suggestion seems to be that the costs will be passed on entirely to international students via rises in tuition fees. There’s not any real information on the assumptions underpinning this position, or credible calculations by which the proportion of students that may be deterred by these rises and other measures has been estimated.

    But details are still scant – the government has, after all, only promised to “explore” the introduction of a levy – and used the idea of a six per cent levy on international tuition fees as an “illustrative example”. We have to look forward to the Autumn statement (not even the skills white paper – remember joined-up, mission-led, government?) for more – and do recall that the white paper is a consultation and responses need to be made in order to finesse the policy.

    Thinking about impact

    There’s no reliable way to assess the impact of this policy with so little information, but we do know a lot about the exposure of each university to the international market.

    For starters here’s a summary of provider income from overseas fees since 2016–17 – both for individual providers and (via the filters) for the sector as a whole.

    [Full screen]

    The story has been one of growth pretty much anywhere you care to look – with only limited evidence of a cooling off in the most recent year of data. Some institutions have trebled their income from this source over the eight years of available data, with particular growth in postgraduate taught provision.

    In considering the financial impact of a potential levy I have used the most recent (2023–24) year of financial data – showing the total non-UK fee income on the vertical axis and the proportion of total income represented by the value of the levy on the horizontal. By default I have modelled a levy of six per cent (you can use the filter to consider other levels).

    [Full screen]

    Who’s up, who’s down?

    In the majority of large universities the cost of levy is equivalent to around two per cent of total income. In the main it is the Russell Group that sees substantial income from international fees – the small number of exceptions (most notably the University of Hertfordshire and the University of the Arts London) would see a levy impact of closer to three per cent of total income.

    What we can’t realistically model is university pricing behavior and the impact on recruitment. Universities generally charge what the market will stand for international courses – and this value is generally higher for providers that are better known from popular league tables.

    Subject areas and qualifications also have an impact (the cost of an MBA, for example, may be higher than a taught creative arts masters – a year of postgraduate study may cost more than a year of an undergraduate course), as does the country from which students are arriving (China may be charged more than India, for example).

    Some better off universities in the middle of the market may choose to swallow more of the cost of the levy in order to increase their competitiveness for applicants making decisions on price – this would put pressure on the currently cheaper end of the market to follow suit as well as direct competitors, and may lower the overall floor price for particular providers (though, to be fair, private providers are still better positioned to undercut should they have access to funds from investment or other parts of the business).

    There is an obvious impact on the quality of the provision if providers do cut the amount of fee income – and this as well could have an impact on the attractiveness of the whole sector. For more hands-on courses in technical or creative subjects, provision may become unviable overall – surrendering the soft power of influence in these fields.

    A starting point

    It’s not often that we see a policy proposal on university funding launched with so little information. Generations of politicians have learned that university funding policy changes are the equivalent of poking a wasps nest with a sharp stick – it may be something that needs doing but the short term pain and noise is massive.

    It could be that it is a deliberate policy to let the sector (and associated commentariat) go crazy for a month or so while a plan is developed to avoid the less desirable (for ministers) consequences. But the idea that international students will gladly pay more to support an underfunded sector is one that has been at the heart of university activity for decades – the only real change here is that the government feels it can put some of the profits to better use than some of our larger and better-known providers.

    In all of this there appears to have been little consideration of the fairness of putting extra costs onto the fees of international students – particularly where they personally don’t see any value from their additional spend. But this has been an issue for a good few years, and it seems to have taken the possibility of a tariff (which could be considered unfair to cash-strapped universities too) to drive this problem further up the sector’s agenda.

    Source link

  • Labor hikes visa application fee to $2000, Dutton’s is $2500+ – Campus Review

    Labor hikes visa application fee to $2000, Dutton’s is $2500+ – Campus Review

    Labor will cut back on outside consultants and hike visa fees for foreign students to cover the extra cost of spending in the March budget.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • How colleges can improve financial transparency in fee payments

    How colleges can improve financial transparency in fee payments

    Effective higher education fee management maximizes revenue, reduces losses, and builds confidence with students and parents. However, 65% of institutions lose money owing to obsolete, manual processes (EDUFinance 2024). This is where student fees collection software shines.

    Let’s look at 10 data-driven strategies to improve student fee collection software for transparency and efficiency.

     

    Why Modern Student Fees Collection Software Matters

    Did you know 37% of college finance teams track fees using spreadsheets, which can lead to errors and miscalculations (Campus Finance Survey, 2024)? Student finance cloud technologies automate complex operations, reduce manual errors, and offer a transparent, real-time financial environment.

     

     

    How colleges can improve financial transparency in fee payments? 10 proven ways. 

     

    1. One seamless student registration and data sync

    Create comprehensive student profiles automatically matched with student information systems (SIS) including demographic data, course information, and financial details. Institutions running linked data systems report 23% faster fee processing.

     

    2. Clearly structured fees

    Fee breakdowns cause 48% of parents to argue (EdTech Insights, 2023). Flexible fees per department, course, or service offer upfront transparency and easier payments.

     

    3. Channel-wide fee collection automation

    Students prefer mobile payments 72% (Higher Ed Payment Trends, 2024). Make websites, mobile apps, and self-service portals accept rapid payments. Automated schools collected fees 27% faster and missed 15% fewer.

     

    4. Fine automation, absenteeism tracking

    Establish absenteeism and late payment penalties. Automation has reduced fee defaulters by 19% and ensures regular sanctions without manual follow-up.

     

    5. Role-based security to protect finances

    Role-based access control is non-negotiable even if 63% of higher education institutions report financial intrusions (EduCyberReport, 2024). Minimizing fraud and mistakes, only authorised staff should handle fee data.

     

    6. Parent portals for real-time fee visibility

    Parents demand more financial participation in their children’s education (82%, ParentPulse Survey, 2024). Parents receive transparent information regarding dues, invoices, and payment schedules via a portal, decreasing late payments.

     

    7. Automatic fee calculations for billing free of errors

    Errors in manual fee computation affect institutions’ annual income up to 4%. Calculate fees automatically using pre-defined criteria to guarantee correct, current billing for every student.

     

    8. Waivers, fee concessions, and flexible payment options

    Offer waivers, discounts, and flexible payment arrangements without any confusion on the back end. Supporting financially challenged students with structured payment plans resulted in 12% higher retention rates for colleges that have implemented this approach.

     

    9. Automatic fee reminders for on-time payments

    According to EduFinance Insights (2024), overlooked reminders account for 43% of late payments. Send automated fee reminders via email, SMS, and push notifications to significantly reduce the number of late payments.

     

    10. Real time financial transparency reports

    Access transaction history, income breakdowns, and outstanding amounts instantly. Real-time reporting improved financial forecasting and reconciliation for 89% of finance directors.

     

    The Bottom Line: Future-Proof Your Fee Management with Creatrix Campus

    Why let outdated processes drain your institution’s revenue? With Creatrix Campus Fee Management Software, higher education institutions can achieve:

    • Faster fee collection with automation and mobile payments
    • Enhanced financial transparency for students, parents, and administrators
    • Stronger security with role-based access and encrypted data
    • Real-time insights for smarter, data-driven financial decisions

    Ready to transform your fee collection process? Let Creatrix Campus help you boost efficiency, ensure transparency, and future-proof your institution’s financial operations.

    Source link

  • When tuition fee payments are suspended, what happens to students left behind?

    When tuition fee payments are suspended, what happens to students left behind?

    Whilst there may be good reasons for suspending tuition fee payments to “safeguard public funding and ensure students’ interests are protected”, decisions taken to safeguard the public purse often risk overlooking the individual students who are left behind.

    In April 2024 the Office for Students (OfS) opened an investigation in relation to Applied Business Academy (ABA) to consider whether it had complied with requirements to provide accurate information about its students, and whether it had effective management and governance arrangements in place.

    In September 2024, the Department for Education (DfE) instructed the Student Loans Company to suspend all tuition fee payments to ABA, until OfS had completed its investigation. On 27 September, ABA asked the OfS to remove it from the Register because it was no longer able to provide higher education. A decision to permanently close ABA was made on 22 October 2024 and liquidators were appointed.

    On 2 April 2025 OfS published a summary of its investigation. We understand around 300 current and prospective students were on courses partnered with universities who supported students through the closure and offered who were offered individual guidance sessions setting out options which included transfer to complete study as per the student protection plans.

    The other group of students

    However, there were also students who were studying for a Level 5 Diploma in Education and Training (DET) awarded by City and Guilds and some awarded by Organisation for Hospitality and Tourism Management (OTHM) – both at the time eligible for student loan finance. According to the OfS investigation this number looks to be just over 2,000.

    The route to raise complaints and seek redress for these students is different to the route for students on courses partnered with universities. As set out in the section of our Good Practice Framework that covers partnership arrangements, awarding universities and delivery partners will both be members of the OIA, so that students can benefit from a route to independent review of both party’s responsibilities. Where only one partner is a member of the OIA, our remit to review issues of concern to students is more limited.

    As the shape of the HE sector has changed, our legislation has been amended several times to bring as many delivery bodies and awarding institutions accessing public money as possible within our membership, to ensure that all students have access to an independent review of their complaints. But not all Awarding Organisations are currently OIA members, even where these courses are eligible for student finance.

    Access and risk

    There are clearly benefits to students of having access to student finance to access non- universities-awarded courses such as HND, HNC and level 4 or 5 courses with a Higher Technical Qualification approval. But we are concerned that the current arrangements may be inequitable, given that some students cannot seek an independent review of some awarding organisations’ acts or omissions.

    We have sought to close this gap by agreeing with Ofqual that awarding organisations being in membership of the OIA Scheme is compatible with Ofqual regulation and opening our Non-Qualifying membership up for awarding organisations.

    The impact on students of the different arrangements materialises further in cases of provider closure. In previous provider closure cases either the university has proactively put in place appropriate options or if they wanted to raise a complaint, the OIA could look at what the university’s role is in resolving this.

    As things stand, students at a delivery partner that ceases to operate at short notice, on courses awarded by an organisation that is not an OIA member, may find themselves with no clear independent route for complaints and redress. In our experience, students studying at HE level via a non-university awarded route and accessing higher education student finance, have no real understanding of this difference from those on a university awarded course.

    In the case of ABA, we have received a small number of complaints from students on the DET course, who are not able to access any financial remedy since ABA has gone into liquidation and the only option is for the students to become an unsecured creditor against ABA.

    We understand that where City and Guilds has received the work of students, there was not sufficient evidence for them to confirm the qualification requirements had been met for any student. This has been particularly difficult news for some students, many of whom believed that they had passed the course and were simply awaiting receipt of their certificate. They are unable to access further funding to re-take the year, compensation or travel costs to complete their studies.

    In the current financial climate and where franchise provision is coming under more scrutiny, it’s hard to imagine there will not be more students in this situation at a provider impacted by a closure. Alongside this the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will potentially open more level 4 and 5 “non university” awarded courses where students may be unable to seek independent redress.

    Whilst we completely agree that protecting public funds is important, we mustn’t forget that there is a real and significant human cost for the genuine students, sometimes with few sources of personal support to help them navigate their limited options, left behind.

    Source link

  • 10 Key Benefits of Using Fee Management Software in Higher Education

    10 Key Benefits of Using Fee Management Software in Higher Education

    Tune In To Our Audio Blog

     

    Higher Education institutions are increasingly moving towards an automated age of cloud, mobile, and big data analytics. There are many reasons institutions should implement the strategy of collecting payments through cloud and mobile-based fee management software. It would be desirable for any type of institution to automate billing/fee collection and drive greater revenue while saving greater hours of manual work.

    A fee management software solves many problems for higher education and helps parents to keep track of fee payments in real-time. No more manual records or calculations on sheets of paper. Using the fee accounting and financial management software, students and parents can use the latest technology tools to connect various departments such as admission, finance, transport, hostel, library, and more. This will result in wider engagement and improved efficiency in educational institutions with the synchronization of data on fee collections. Student fee collection and unpaid fee details can be accessed on mobile devices including iPhone and Android from anywhere and anytime, beyond the campus.

     

    Key Benefits of Using Fee Management Software

     

     

    Effortless Payment Integration

    Fee management software integrates effortlessly with most of the common payment gateway platforms, allowing students to select the payment options that best suit them, including digital wallets, bank transfers, and credit/debit cards, and pay in a click. To those in the finance team, the software ensures safe cash flow, timely payments, and streamlined financial operations, without spending too much time.

     

    Financial Data at the Fingertips

    Real-time financial insights can be obtained through the use of dynamic reporting technologies and real-time analytics of the finance module. Your team including key decision-makers and institutional heads can now make precise, data-driven decisions with this state-of-the-art capability, which guarantees precise financial forecasting and institutional strategic planning that helps you deal with tomorrow.

     

    100% Security on Finances

    Improve your institution’s financial security with cutting-edge encryption and AI-driven threat detection that most fee management software comes with. By using the most recent cybersecurity technologies integrated into the fee management systems, you can almost eliminate the risk of data breaches and fraud, providing rock-solid safety and total peace of mind for both the higher ed’s institution and its students.

     

    Personalized Payment Plans

    Transform student financial management with fully customizable payment alternatives that meet individual students’ needs. Whether it’s flexible installment plans, financial aid, or delayed payments, these specialized fee solutions increase student satisfaction and retention by giving the financial flexibility, empowerment, and assistance that every student deserves. The Mobile-first approach is another attractive feature of the fee management software that makes it a totally attractive package. 

     

    Laborsaving Fee Reconciliation

    Turbocharge your financial process with intelligent automation that promptly and accurately aligns invoices and payments, slashing administrative burdens and decreasing human errors so that employees can concentrate on key responsibilities.

     

    Mobile Access

    In a world where mobile devices are becoming more and more common, redefine payment management with a strong mobile platform that enables administrators and students to accept payments whenever and wherever they choose.

     

    Personalized Fee Structures

    Your higher education can execute a bunch of unique financial models and individualized solutions by utilizing flexible fee structures that are made to meet the unique requirements of different programs, courses, and students.

     

    Effortless Refund Automation

    Instill confidence in students with a cutting-edge, automated refund system that ensures rapid and precise disbursements, in no time. This benefit indeed reflects your institution’s dedication to transparency and superior financial stewardship.

     

    Seamless Regulatory Navigation

    Using state-of-the-art compliance tools, institutions can easily adhere to local and international financial regulations, protecting your institution from fines and legal trouble while maintaining the greatest levels of honesty and integrity.

     

    Strategic Financial Planning

    Make the most of cutting-edge analytics and comprehensive reporting to find insightful financial data, improve the distribution of resources, and create plans for strategic expansion that will help your higher education institution grow and prosper.

     

    Revolutionize Your Finances with Creatrix Fee Management Software Today

    In summary, putting in place strong fee management software is not just a contemporary comfort but also a tactical requirement for higher education institutions. Operational efficiency, financial correctness, and student satisfaction can all be significantly increased by integrating automated procedures, real-time financial information, and customized payment plans too!

    A recent research demonstrated the transformative power of such technology by showing that institutions that implemented advanced fee management systems witnessed a 75% reduction in administrative workload and a 30% rise in timely payments.

    If you wish to be one such institution, Creatrix Campus can help. Find out how the Creatrix Campus Fee Management System can improve security, expedite your billing procedures, and give you the real-time data you require to spur productivity and growth. To find out more and arrange a demo right away, click this link!

    Source link

  • New Instructions Clarify USCIS Fee Rule Reductions and Exemptions for Higher Ed – CUPA-HR

    New Instructions Clarify USCIS Fee Rule Reductions and Exemptions for Higher Ed – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 6, 2024

    On March 1, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published updated forms and filing instructions for the I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker and the I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. These updates incorporate new fee calculations as outlined in the USCIS fee rule. Notably, the filing instructions state that institutions “of higher education, as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965” are eligible for the reduced fees and exemption from the Asylum Program fee.

    This clarification follows the issuance of a final rule by USCIS on January 31, 2024, which adjusted the fees for most immigration applications and petitions, resulting in significantly higher fees for most employment-based petitioners. However, due to concerns raised by stakeholders, including CUPA-HR and other higher education institutions, the final rule provided relief for nonprofit organizations in the form of fee reductions as well as an exemption from a newly introduced fee intended to fund the Asylum Program.

    In a previous blog post, CUPA-HR addressed the confusion stemming from the final rule’s reliance on the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a nonprofit organization, particularly 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). This definition caused uncertainty among public universities and colleges, which, while tax-exempt, are not classified as 501(c)(3) entities. The preamble to the final rule suggested that the agency’s approach to defining “nonprofit” was designed to ensure that the primary types of organizations eligible for the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act’s fee reduction — specifically, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and governmental research organizations — would also qualify for fee reductions and exemptions under this rule. However, the possibility of a strict interpretation of “nonprofit” might have left public universities and colleges facing increased fees.

    The updated filing instructions offer much-needed clarity on the fee reductions and exemptions, ensuring that institutions of higher education as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965 will not be overly burdened by petitioner fees.



    Source link

  • USCIS Issues Final Immigration and Naturalization Fee Rule Effective April 1 – CUPA-HR

    USCIS Issues Final Immigration and Naturalization Fee Rule Effective April 1 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 1, 2024

    Important Update: We wish to clarify an important aspect regarding the USCIS final fee rule’s exemptions/reduced fees for nonprofit organizations. The rule specifies that the exemption/reduced fees apply to entities classified under the 501(c)(3) category, as per the Internal Revenue Code. This classification may not encompass many public universities and colleges, which, while tax-exempt, are generally not designated as 501(c)(3) organizations. We are aware of the confusion this may cause within the higher education community and are working with other higher education associations to seek clarification from USCIS.

    On January 31, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a final rule to adjust certain immigration and naturalization benefit request fees, resulting in significantly higher fees for employment-based petitioners, with notable reductions and exemptions for certain higher education employers. USCIS claims that the increased fees, which will apply to any benefit request postmarked on or after April 1, 2024, will “allow USCIS to recover a greater share of its operating costs and support more timely processing of new applications.”

    Background

    Unlike other government agencies that receive the majority of their funding through congressional appropriations, USCIS receives approximately 96 percent of its funding from filing fees. The agency, after its last fee adjustment in 2016, conducted a fee review that revealed these fees were inadequate to meet the agency’s operating costs. This assessment led USCIS to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in January 2023, which included substantial increases to various employment-based filing fees, including up to 200 percent increases for some petitions. In response to the proposal, CUPA-HR joined comments which addressed higher ed-specific concerns with the proposal including the impact the increased fees would have had on international scholars and institutions’ ability to hire nonimmigrant workers, including H-1B workers.

    Final Rule Details

    While the final rule is nearly 330 pages long and has significant implications for both employment-based and family-based filings, this blog post focuses on the notable changes from the proposed rule to the final rule that have the most significant implications for higher ed employers.

    The proposed rule introduced a new fee to fund the Asylum Program with employer petition fees. The fee is $600 to be paid by any employer who files either a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, or Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. In the latest rule, USCIS finalized this fee but exempted the Asylum Program Fee for nonprofit petitioners that meet the Internal Revenue Code’s specific 501(c)(3) classification, resulting in a $0 fee for those entities. While the comments CUPA-HR signed onto requested that higher ed be exempt from the fee, based on precedents like the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1988, which exempted certain fees for colleges and universities, there is confusion regarding this exemption’s applicability to some public universities and colleges, as many do not fall under the 501(c)(3) classification.

    In addition to the new Asylum Program Fee, USCIS is implementing the following changes to employment-based and employment-based “adjacent” filing fees:

    • Fee changes for visa classifications on Form I-129 and Form I-140: USCIS is imposing different fees for each visa classification sought on the Form I-129 nonimmigrant worker petition, replacing the uniform $460 Form I-129 filing fee across all classifications.
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for H-1B workers: USCIS had proposed a 70 percent increase in the filing fee, from $460 to $780. In the final rule DHS did not increase the filing fee for nonprofits so it is still $460 (0 percent increase).
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for L-1 workers: USCIS had proposed a 201 percent increase from $460 to $1,385. In the final rule USCIS set the fee for nonprofits at $695 (51 percent increase).
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for O-1 workers: USCIS had proposed a 129 percent increase, from $460 to $1,055. In the final rule USCIS set the fee for nonprofits at $530 (15 percent increase).
    • A full fee schedule can be found in Table 1 of the preamble to the final rule.

    In addition to the aforementioned changes, USCIS finalized its proposal to revise the premium processing timeframe interpretation from calendar days to business days. Currently, premium processing allows petitioners to receive an adjudicative action on their case within 15 calendar days. Changing the interpretation to business days will add nearly a week to the existing adjudication time.

    Update on Clarification Efforts by Higher Education

    In response to the USCIS final fee rule’s reliance on the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a nonprofit organization, specifically 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), higher education associations are actively seeking clarification from USCIS. These efforts aim to understand how the fee adjustments will impact public universities and colleges that do not fall under the 501(c)(3) classification. The goal is to ensure that the unique status of higher education institutions is recognized and adequately addressed in the implementation of the fee rule.



    Source link

  • USCIS Proposes Fee Rule With Significant Increases for Employers – CUPA-HR

    USCIS Proposes Fee Rule With Significant Increases for Employers – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 19, 2023

    On January 4, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a proposed rule to adjust certain immigration and naturalization benefit request fees, which would result in significantly higher fees for employment-based petitioners. USCIS last adjusted fees in 2016, but the most recent fee review conducted by the agency determined that the 2016 fees are insufficient to cover the agency’s operating costs. Unlike other government agencies that receive the majority of their funding through congressional appropriations, USCIS receives approximately 96 percent of its funding from filing fees. USCIS claims that the increased fees will “allow USCIS to more fully recover its operating costs, reestablish and maintain timely case processing, and prevent the accumulation of future case backlogs.”

    While the proposal is nearly 500 pages long and has significant implications for both employment-based and family-based filings, this blog post focuses on the most significant implications for higher ed employers. Of significance for higher ed employers is a new proposal to fund the Asylum Program with employer petitions fees. Specifically, USCIS “proposes a new Asylum Program Fee of $600 be paid by any employers who file either a Form I-129, Petition for a Non-immigrant Worker, or Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker.”

    In addition to the new Asylum Program Fee, USCIS is proposing to increase almost all employment-based and employment-based “adjacent” filing fees. A full fee schedule can be found in Table 1 of the preamble to the proposal and includes the following highlights:

    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for H-1B workers rose 70 percent, from $460 to $780;
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for L-1 workers rose 201 percent, from $460 to $1,385;
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for O-1 workers rose 129 percent, from $460 to $1,055;
    • I-765 Employment Authorization (EAD) application fees were structured in a way to encourage online applications by providing a discount for online filings. Online applications will be priced at $555, regardless of whether the individual needs their biometrics, whereas paper-based filings will be $650.
    • Changes made to the I-539 fees for applications to extend/change non-immigrant status were similarly structured to the I-765 changes. Online applications will be priced at $525, whereas paper-based applications are rising to $620.
    • I-485 Adjustment of Status applications uniformly rose to $1,540. For those interested in applying for adjustment of status and a travel document (I-131), those fees will be $2,170 for electronic applications and $2,190 for paper-based applications. Lastly, for those looking to concurrently file for a status adjustment, a travel document and an EAD (I-765), that will cost $2,820.

    In addition to the aforementioned changes, USCIS is also proposing to revise the premium processing timeframe interpretation from calendar days to business days. Currently, premium processing allows petitioners to receive an adjudicative action on their case within 15 calendar days. Changing the interpretation to business days would add nearly a week to the existing adjudication time.

    As mentioned earlier, the fee proposal is nearly 500 pages long and as such includes numerous changes not covered in this blog post. CUPA-HR will continue to evaluate the proposal, which is open for public feedback through March 6, 2023, and plans to join with other higher education associations to submit comments identifying the proposals impact to the higher education community.



    Source link