Tag: proposed

  • LAWSUIT: New Jersey school board member silenced for asking constituents about a proposed tax increase

    LAWSUIT: New Jersey school board member silenced for asking constituents about a proposed tax increase

    ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP, N.J., Nov. 20, 2025 — A local school board member’s Facebook post to community members about a tax hike should have started a conversation — instead, it led to censorship.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is suing the commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Education and members of the state’s School Ethics Commission to stop them from abusing a law to chill the speech of an elected school board member who used social media to seek her constituents’ input. 

    “I didn’t join the school board to be told to shut up,” said Gail Nazarene, an elected school board member, Navy veteran, and grandma in Alloway Township. “New Jersey officials claim the authority to punish me simply for asking folks questions about important issues, particularly when it affects their wallets. I should be free to communicate with constituents and get their views without being censored by state officials.”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF GAIL NAZARENE

    In April, Gail used Facebook to discuss tax increases and other school issues with constituents. In one post, she asked, “As a resident of Alloway, I am wondering what other residents think about a 9-15% school tax increase?” She clarified in her later posts that she was asking in her personal capacity. But another school board member saw the posts and filed a complaint against her, claiming Gail had violated New Jersey’s School Ethics Act because she allegedly had spoken on the board’s behalf. The complaint is pending before the state’s School Ethics Commission. 

    “Americans deserve to know what their elected officials think about important issues,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Zahn. “New Jersey is muzzling elected officials and preventing them from talking with their community, the very people they were elected to represent.”

    The state broadly interprets the School Ethics Act to bar elected officials from discussing issues relating to schools on social media. And this isn’t the first time it’s done so. The School Ethics Commission has previously warned elected officials against engaging with constituents on social media and previously interpreted the act to prevent elected school board members from discussing matters of public concern on social media and in op-eds. 

    But the First Amendment protects Gail’s right to speak freely on such issues. 

    Gail has stopped soliciting constituent feedback online. She fears any posts about school board issues will lead to punishment, including reprimand, censure, suspension, or removal. But she also is concerned about the loss of First Amendment freedoms for her and her constituents. 

    “When the state silences school board members, parents and taxpayers are kept in the dark,” said FIRE attorney Greg Greubel. “The School Ethics Act can’t be turned into an unconstitutional gag rule.”

    Today’s federal lawsuit asks the court to declare New Jersey’s School Ethics Act unconstitutional as interpreted by the state and stop its use against elected officials speaking out about public issues. 

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT
    Katie Stalcup, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • MIT Rejects Proposed Federal Compact

    MIT Rejects Proposed Federal Compact

    Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology has rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to sign on to the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which would mandate sweeping changes across campus in exchange for preferential treatment on federal funding.

    MIT is the first of the nine universities invited to join the compact to publicly reject the proposal that has ignited fierce pushback from other higher ed leaders, faculty and experts who see the document as a way to strip institutions of their autonomy. The Trump administration also asked Brown University, Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University to sign. Most have provided vague statements saying that they are reviewing the compact, though Texas officials have expressed some enthusiasm about the offer.

    MIT President Sally Kornbluth announced the move in a Friday morning letter to the campus community, which included a copy of her response to Education Secretary Linda McMahon.

    Kornbluth highlighted in the response to McMahon a number of areas emphasized by the White House in the compact, such as focusing on merit, keeping costs low for students and protecting free expression. 

    “These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission—work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law,” Kornbluth wrote.

    She also noted that MIT disagreed with a number of the demands in the letter, arguing that it “would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution” and that “the premise of the document is inconsistent” with MIT’s belief that funding should be based on merit.

    “In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence,” Kornbluth wrote. “In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.”

    This is a breaking news article and will be updated.

    Source link

  • London Mayor slams proposed international tuition fee levy

    London Mayor slams proposed international tuition fee levy

    In a keynote address earlier this week at Imperial Global Ghana – Imperial College London’s overseas branch campus in Accra – Sadiq Khan warned that proposals for a new levy on international university fees would hit the UK’s finances hard, describing the policy as “an act of immense economic self-harm”.

    The UK government is currently considering a new levy on income that English universities generate from international students as part of its immigration whitepaper, which could not only put students off coming  from overseas but also create a substantial extra financial burden for already stretched universities.

    International students contribute about £12.5 billion to London, and another £55bn to the national economy every year, Khan pointed out. For this reason, the government should not make it difficult for these students to study in the UK, Khan said at the event – which formed part of his trade mission to Ghana.

    With 5% of students in London’s higher education institutions coming from Africa, Khan stressed the need to ensure that international students are not frustrated. 

    “Closing our economy to global talent would be an act of immense economic self-harm. One that would slow down growth and leave working people in Britain worse off than before. At a time when President Trump is attacking international students, we should be welcoming them,” he added.

    Khan said the international students also bring a longer-term labour market value, as many stay after their studies to work in key economic sectors from tech and AI to finance and creative industries. For this reason, he disagreed with the view that, “we should pull up the drawbridge to international students or punish universities that choose to welcome people from around the world”.

    On Imperial College opening up a hub in Ghana, he said London is ready to contribute to the development effort of Ghana, “not as a patron, but as a partner. In a genuinely reciprocal relationship that brings benefits to us both”.

    President Trump is attacking international students, we should be welcoming them
    Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London

    The vice-chancellor of the University of Ghana, Nana Aba Appiah Amfo, said the university is committed to providing to its  students with a transformative experience that goes beyond the classroom to nurture innovation, leadership and practical problem solving, adding that “this commitment is rooted in our strategic plan, which prioritises student success, impactful research and strategic partners”.

    “One such partnership, rich in promise and results, is with Imperial College London. What began as a collaboration between two researchers has evolved into a university-wide alliance, advancing work in climate change, diagnostics, and entrepreneurship. It is a powerful model of what mutual trust and shared purpose can achieve,” Amfo added.

    She said the Student Venture Support Programme has become the flagship agenda of the partnership which was launched in 2022 with the Imperial College and is  equipping students with skills, mentoring and funding to turn ideas into viable ventures. 

    To date, it has supported over 400 students and more than 115 startups, spanning four universities across Ghana.

    Despite Khan’s strong opposition to the levy, it looks likely to go ahead.

    At last week’s BUILA conference, skills minister Jacqui Smith doubled down on the need for the levy, saying it would reinforce public confidence in the UK’s international education sector.

    Source link

  • The proposed international student levy could be the tipping point for a fragile sector

    The proposed international student levy could be the tipping point for a fragile sector

    • Professor Duncan Ivison is President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester.

    Almost one year into the Labour government’s term, its vision for higher education is emerging. One exciting aspect of it is the role they see universities playing in helping to drive their agenda for inclusive growth. The recently announced R&D funding commitments, including regional ‘innovation clusters’, and the Industrial Strategy, all point to the role that higher education will play in driving innovation through world-class research and producing the highly skilled graduates our life sciences, technology, defence, and creative industry sectors – among others – will require. This is good news for the sector.

    Baroness Smith, Minister for Skills, and Lord Vallance, Minister for Science, have made clear that they see the core principles that will shape the UK’s higher education sector over the next five years. This includes contributing to economic growth, conducting the highest quality curiosity-driven research, helping build national capabilities in key sectors, contributing to the economic and social well-being of the regions in which we’re based, and being a global force for UK soft power through international collaborations.   

    This is a compelling vision and one that –  at least for the University of Manchester – we are keen to support,  including through our forthcoming Manchester 2035 strategy.   

    But in politics, vision quickly runs up against political reality, and we can also see now some of the challenges the sector will face, not least in relation to immigration and the difficult fiscal situation the government faces. The recent Immigration White Paper makes that clear.

    One of the more contentious aspects of the White Paper – in addition to reducing the graduate visa route from 24 months to 18 – is the proposal for a 6% levy on international student fees.

     Of course, for those of us familiar with Australian higher education policy, it is, as Yogi Bera once said, déjà vu all over again.  The Australian government proposed a 2% levy on international fee income in 2023, but it was never implemented. The main purpose of that levy was to redistribute fee income from the larger, research-intensive metropolitan universities to those (mainly in the regions) who struggled to attract international students. It stalled in the Australian parliament after fierce criticism from some parts of the sector, as well as the government deciding to pursue its aims through other means.

    In the UK, on the other hand, the levy seems designed to do two things. First, to generate additional revenue for the Department of Education in a very difficult fiscal environment. And second, to make manifest the contribution that international students make to the UK.

    There are several things wrong with this approach if indeed these are the main justifications for it. But I recognise it’s something currently being explored, rather than already decided, and so I offer my thoughts here as part of the consultations now underway.

    First, it’s striking that for a government seeking to position itself as a champion of global free trade and economic growth, they are proposing what is essentially a tax on one of the UK’s most successful export industries (worth ~£22 billion a year from higher education alone).

    Second, the fact that the government doesn’t feel the public understands the contribution that international students make to the UK is deeply concerning. The short answer is that they make a massive contribution: in fact, their financial contribution and talent has been crucial not only in helping the UK maintain its global standing as a higher education powerhouse, but also to the regional and local economies in which universities are based.  

    There are other more specific problems with the levy too, at least for a university like mine.

    For one thing, a levy assumes universities can simply pass on the additional cost to our students. But this neglects the fact that we are operating in a highly competitive international market, and a significant price increase will make us less attractive to some of the fastest-growing parts of it. Moreover, many international students might not appreciate that they are now being asked to cross-subsidise other parts of the UK’s education system, in addition to the significant contribution they are already making. One perverse consequence of a 6% increase in fees might be that we end up abandoning our efforts to diversify the countries from which we recruit and focus only on those who can afford higher fees.  This will only deepen the risk that successive governments have been keen for us to mitigate.

    Moreover, at Manchester at least, we have already factored in increases to our international fees to account for rising costs over the next five years. Adding 6% on top of that would be unworkable.  So, we would either have to absorb most, if not all, of the levy (plus inflation), or increase our fees substantially and lose market share. Assuming that we would see very little of the levy come back to us – the history of hypothecated funding is not encouraging in this regard – this would be a major financial blow.  It would also, as a result, likely generate much less income than the Department hopes.  For a sector already teetering on the edge of fiscal implosion, this could be the tipping point. To put it into context: for the University of Manchester, a 6% levy would mean a potential loss of ~£43M of revenue p.a by 2029/30, wiping out the slim margin we have for reinvesting in our teaching and research. The levy does nothing to address the structural challenges facing the higher education sector. In fact, it is likely to make things worse.

    But it would also undermine our ability to do the very things the government wants us to do more of. Already, international student fees help us bridge the financial gap between what we receive to teach all our students and what it actually costs, as well as the gap between the full costs of research and what funding councils and charities provide. This is under threat if we get our higher education policy settings wrong. And let’s be clear: it would hurt local students and local economies most. Almost half our students remain in Manchester after they graduate, contributing hugely to our city and region.

    We are keen to contribute to the government’s vision for higher education.  For example, we are spending ~£21M p.a. on helping disadvantaged students with their cost of living and studies. And from this year, we will be investing more than ever before in accelerating the commercialisation of our research and generating more student and staff start-ups, scale-ups and job creation for Greater Manchester and the country.

    I understand the challenges the government faces on immigration and funding higher education. There should be no tolerance of shonky providers serving as a front for migration workarounds. And universities need to prove they are operating as efficiently as possible and collaborating in new and transformative ways – as I’ve argued elsewhere and as we’re doing with Liverpool and Cambridge.

    An alternative approach to a levy would be to develop specific compacts with clusters of universities based on delivering against the government’s core priorities for HE in concrete ways – building on the new ‘innovation clusters’ in the recent R&D announcement. We’re already doing this in Greater Manchester, given the excellent collaborative culture that exists between the universities, further education colleges, and the Combined Authority. It’s a model we could scale nationally.  I look forward to the discussions to come in the weeks ahead.

    Source link

  • McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department

    McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department

    During a hearing Wednesday, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s proposal to heavily cut funding for the U.S. Department of Education during the 2026 fiscal year, arguing the reductions were a key step toward winding down the agency. 

    “We seek to shrink federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money and empower states who best know their local needs to manage education in this country,” McMahon said before lawmakers on the House Committee on Appropriations’s education subcommittee. 

    President Donald Trump’s budget request, released at the beginning of the month, would slash funding to the Education Department by 15.3%, or about $12 billion. 

    The plan calls for eliminating two federal programs aimed at improving college access for disadvantaged and low-income students — TRIO and Gear Up — as well as shifting the responsibility of the Federal Work-Study program to the states. And it would eliminate funding for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which provide need-based aid to undergraduate students. 

    It also would reduce funding for the already-diminished Office for Civil Rights, which investigates harassment and discrimination on college campuses and in K-12 schools, by about $49 million, a 35% cut from the previous year. 

    Republicans on the panel largely lauded the proposal, with many praising the Trump administration’s support for charter schools, which would receive a $60 million funding bump in the budget. 

    Democrats, however, slammed the budget, arguing the cuts would undermine student success and restrict pathways to higher education. 

    “Your visions for students aspiring to access and pay for college is particularly grim,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the appropriations committee, said during the hearing. “Some families do not need financial assistance to go to college, but that’s not true for the rest.” 

    ‘You will not have the partnership of Congress’

    Trump signed an executive order in March directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.” 

    His administration has shared plans to move its key functions to other agencies. In one instance, Trump suggested that operating the student loan portfolio should be the responsibility of the newly-downsized Small Business Administration.

    Some Republicans on the panel voiced support for this plan Wednesday. Rep. Jake Ellzey, from Texas, suggested the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services could take over mental health support provided by the Education Department. He also proposed that the U.S. Department of Justice could oversee civil rights matters — an option McMahon floated during her confirmation hearing in February. 

    On Wednesday, McMahon described the Education Department as a federal funding “pass-through mechanism” and said other agencies could take over the job of distributing allocations from Congress. 

    “Whether the channels of that funding are through HHS, or whether they’re funneled through the DOJ, or whether they’re funneled through the Treasury or SBA or other departments, the work is going to continue to get done,” McMahon said. 

    However, Democrats indicated they would not support those efforts. 

    “You will not have the partnership of Congress in your efforts to destroy the Department of Education,” DeLauro said. “Not on our watch.” 

    DeLauro also slammed McMahon over recent cuts to the Education Department, which has eliminated about half of its staff and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars worth of grants. 

    “By recklessly incapacitating the department you lead, you are usurping Congress’ authority and infringing on Congress’ power of the purse,” she said. 

    Democrats also took issue with the budget’s proposal to shift the responsibility of funding programs to states. 

    Along with Federal Work-Study, the 2026 proposal would cut funding for other higher education programs, including the Strengthening Institutions Program, which provides grants to help colleges become more financially stable, improve their academic quality and ability to serve low-income students. 

    Source link

  • Proposed Budget Cuts Could End Fulbright Program

    Proposed Budget Cuts Could End Fulbright Program

    The Trump administration is looking to cut the State Department’s budget by almost half, and educational and cultural exchange programs, like the Fulbright scholarship, could be fully eliminated as a result, The Washington Post reported Monday.

    An internal memo, obtained by the Post, suggested that the department may only have $28.4 billion to spend next fiscal year to cover all of its staffing and operations and to share with the U.S. Agency for International Development, an independent agency that Trump has already tried to eliminate. That’s $27 billion, or 48 percent, less funding than the two groups received in fiscal year 2025.

    The proposed budget cuts would terminate the Fulbright scholarship, a highly selective cultural exchange program established by Congress in 1946, along with the State Department’s other educational and cultural programs. The president has yet to propose his budget for fiscal year 2026 to Congress, though he’s expected to do so later this month, the Post reported. Congress, by law, has the final say about which programs get funding.

    Fulbright funding and operations have already been in flux during the early days of the Trump administration as some participants have struggled to obtain their visas for next academic year and others are waiting on stipend funds that had been promised to get them through the current term, Inside Higher Ed has reported.

    The State Department did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.

    Source link

  • Search for Higher Ed Legislation Proposed in Congress

    Search for Higher Ed Legislation Proposed in Congress

    Welcome Inside Higher Ed‘s legislation tracker, a database of the key higher-ed related bills lawmakers have proposed in Congress. Few will likely become law, but the proposals offer insights into how Republicans and Democrats want to reshape the sector.

    So far, lawmakers have proposed 31 bills that would directly impact colleges and universities.

    You can search the database below to learn more about each proposal. The current session of Congress runs through the end of 2026 which means this list will grow. We’ll update the database regularly, so please check back for updates.

    Questions, comments or think we’re missing a bill? Email [email protected].

    The database was last updated March 20.

    More Coverage of Higher Ed and Congress:

    Source link

  • FIRE opposes Virginia’s proposed regulation of candidate deepfakes

    FIRE opposes Virginia’s proposed regulation of candidate deepfakes

    Last year, California passed restrictions on sharing AI-generated deepfakes of candidates, which a court then promptly blocked for violating the First Amendment. Virginia now looks to be going down a similar road with a new bill to penalize people for merely sharing certain AI-generated media of political candidates.

    This legislation, which has been in SB 775 and HB 2479, would make it illegal to share artificially generated, realistic-looking images, video, or audio of a candidate to “influence an election,” if the person knew or should have known that the content is “deceptive or misleading.” There is a civil penalty or, if the sharing occurred within 90 days before an election, up to one year in jail. Only if a person adds a conspicuous disclaimer to the media can they avoid these penalties.

    The practical effects of this ban are alarming. Say a person in Virginia encounters a deepfaked viral video of a candidate on Facebook within 90 days of an election. They know it’s not a real image of the candidate, but they think it’s amusing and captures a message they want to share with other Virginians. It doesn’t have a disclaimer, but the person doesn’t know it’s supposed to, and doesn’t know how to edit the video anyway. They decide to repost it to their feed.

    That person could now face jailtime.

    The ban would also impact the media. Say a journalist shares a deepfake that is directly relevant to an important news story. The candidate depicted decides that the journalist didn’t adequately acknowledge “in a manner that can easily be heard and understood by the average listener or viewer, that there are questions about the authenticity of the media,” as the bill requires. That candidate could sue to block further sharing of the news story.

    The First Amendment safeguards expressive tools like AI, allowing them to enhance our ability to communicate with one another without facing undue government restrictions.

    These illustrate the startling breadth of SB 775/HB 2479’s regulation of core political speech, which makes it unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. Laws targeting core political speech have serious difficulty passing constitutional muster, even when they involve false or misleading speech. That’s because there’s no general First Amendment exception for misinformation, disinformation, or other false speech. That’s for good reason: A general exception would be easily abused to suppress dissent and criticism.

    Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems

    News

    There’s no ‘artificial intelligence’ exception to the First Amendment.


    Read More

    There are narrow, well-defined categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment — such as fraud and defamation — that Virginia can and does already restrict. But SB 775/HB 2479 is not limited to fraudulent or defamatory speech.

    For laws that burden protected speech related to elections, it is a very high bar to pass constitutional muster. This bill doesn’t meet that bar. It restricts far more speech than necessary to prevent voters from being deceived in ways that would have any effect on an election, and there are other ways to address deepfakes that would burden much less speech. For one, other speakers or candidates can (and do) simply point them out, eroding their potential to deceive.

    The First Amendment safeguards expressive tools like AI, allowing them to enhance our ability to communicate with one another without facing undue government restrictions.

    We urge the Virginia General Assembly to oppose this legislation. If it gets to his desk, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin should veto.

    Source link

  • Federal Agencies Issue Proposed Rule on Pay Equity and Transparency for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    Federal Agencies Issue Proposed Rule on Pay Equity and Transparency for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 14, 2024

    On January 30, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and NASA issued a proposed rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to create a salary history ban and require pay transparency during the hiring process for federal contractors and subcontractors. The proposed rule aligns with the Biden administration’s 2022 Executive Order, “Advancing Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness in Federal Contracting by Promoting Pay Equity and Transparency.”

    According to the proposed rule, the FAR would be amended to implement a government-wide policy that would:

    1. prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering job applicants’ previous compensation when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract (“salary history ban”); and
    2. require these contractors and subcontractors to disclose on job announcements the compensation to be offered (“compensation disclosure” or “pay transparency”).

    The proposed rule comes as many states and localities have recently implemented salary history bans and pay transparency laws. As the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking notes, 21 states, 22 localities, and Washington, D.C., have put bans into place that prohibit employers from asking job applicants for their salary, and 10 states have pay transparency laws in place, with several other states working toward implementing such laws.

    The agencies have provided a 70-day comment period for the proposed rule, closing on April 1. Stakeholders are invited to submit comments on their support for or opposition to the provisions of the proposed rule. CUPA-HR will monitor for additional updates on this proposed rule and other policy initiatives at the federal level as they relate to pay transparency and salary history bans.



    Source link

  • Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa Program – CUPA-HR

    Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa Program – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 9, 2023

    On October 23, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a proposed rule that aims to improve the H-1B program by simplifying the application process, increasing the program’s efficiency, offering more advantages and flexibilities to both petitioners and beneficiaries, and strengthening the program’s integrity measures.

    Background

    The H-1B visa program is pivotal for many sectors, particularly higher education. It permits U.S. employers to employ foreign professionals in specialty occupations requiring specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s degree or higher or its equivalent. The program is subject to an annual limit of 65,000 visas, with an additional allocation of 20,000 visas reserved for foreign nationals who have earned a U.S. master’s degree or higher. Certain workers are exempt from this cap, including those at higher education institutions or affiliated nonprofit entities and nonprofit or governmental research organizations.

    Highlights of the Proposed Rule

    Prompted by challenges with the H-1B visa lottery, USCIS has prioritized a proposed rule to address the system’s integrity. The move comes after a surge in demand for H-1B visas led to the adoption of a lottery for fair distribution. However, with the fiscal year 2024 seeing a historic 758,994 registrations and over half of the candidates being entered multiple times, there was concern over potential exploitation to skew selection chances. This proposed rule is a direct response to strengthen the registration process and prevent fraud.

    Beyond addressing lottery concerns, the proposal makes critical revisions to underlying H-1B regulations. It seeks to formalize policies currently in place through guidance and tweak specific regulatory aspects.

    Amending the Definition of a “Specialty Occupation.” At present, a “specialty occupation” is identified as a job that requires unique, specialized knowledge in fields like engineering, medicine, education, business specialties, the arts, etc., and it typically mandates a bachelor’s degree or higher in a specific area or its equivalent. USCIS is proposing to refine the definition of a “specialty occupation” to ensure that the required degree for such positions is directly related to the job duties. The proposal specifies that general degrees without specialized knowledge do not meet the criteria, and petitioners must prove the connection between the degree field(s) and the occupation’s duties. The rule would allow for different specific degrees to qualify for a position if each degree directly relates to the occupation’s responsibilities. For example, a bachelor’s degree in either education or chemistry could be suitable for a chemistry teacher’s position if both are relevant to the job. The changes emphasize that the mere possibility of qualifying for a position with an unrelated degree is insufficient, and specific degrees must impart highly specialized knowledge pertinent to the role.

    Amending the Criteria for Specialty Occupation Positions. USCIS is proposing updates to the criteria defining a “specialty occupation” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This proposal includes a clarification of the term “normally,” which, in the context of a specialty occupation, indicates that a bachelor’s degree is typically, but not always, necessary for the profession. USCIS is aiming to standardize this term to reflect a type, standard, or regular pattern, reinforcing that the term “normally” does not equate to “always.”

    Extending F-1 Cap-Gap Protection. USCIS is proposing to revise the Cap-Gap provisions, which currently extend employment authorization for F-1 students awaiting H-1B visa approval until October 1 of the fiscal year for which H–1B visa classification has been requested. The Cap-Gap refers to the period between the end of an F-1 student’s Optional Practical Training (OPT) and the start of their H-1B status, which can lead to a gap in lawful status or employment authorization. The new proposal seeks to extend this period until April 1 of the fiscal year for which the H-1B visa is filed, or until the visa is approved, to better address processing delays and reduce the risk of employment authorization interruption. To be eligible, the H-1B petition must be legitimate and filed on time. This change is intended to support the U.S. in attracting and maintaining skilled international workers by providing a more reliable transition from student to professional status.

    Cap-Exempt Organizations. USCIS is redefining which employers are exempt from the H-1B visa cap. The proposed changes involve revising the definition of “nonprofit research organization” and “governmental research organization” from being “primarily engaged” in research to conducting research as a “fundamental activity.” This proposed change would enable organizations that might not focus primarily on research, but still fundamentally engage in such activities, to qualify for the exemption. Additionally, USCIS aims to accommodate beneficiaries not directly employed by a qualifying organization but who still perform essential, mission-critical work.

    Deference. USCIS is proposing to codify a policy of deference to prior adjudications of Form I-129 petitions, as delineated in the USCIS Policy Manual, mandating that officers give precedence to earlier decisions when the same parties and material facts recur. This proposal, however, includes stipulations that such deference is not required if there were material errors in the initial approval, if substantial changes in circumstances or eligibility have occurred, or if new and pertinent information emerges that could negatively influence the eligibility assessment.

    Next Steps

    While this summary captures key elements of the proposed changes, our members should be aware that the rule contains other important provisions that warrant careful review. These additional provisions could also significantly impact the H-1B visa program and its beneficiaries, and it is crucial for all interested parties to examine the proposed rule in its entirety to understand its full implications.

    USCIS is accepting public comment on its proposal through December 22, 2023. CUPA-HR is evaluating the proposed revisions and will be working with other higher education associations to submit comprehensive comments for the agency’s consideration. As USCIS moves towards finalizing the proposals within this rulemaking, potentially through one or more final rules depending on the availability of agency resources, CUPA-HR will keep its members informed of all significant updates and outcomes.



    Source link