The content below is formatted from the charter of congress hearing on March 26^th for the purpose of better clarification of issue in hand and closer fitness into the goals, which are to outline the background of the visa checks process, to identify the current stymies faced by Chinese students and scholars alike, and propose probable policy recommendations and remedies so that the next step of the grander sketch of this mission can be drawn ably by the committee. 

 On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, the House Science Committee will hold a hearing on the enhanced security measures that foreign students and scholars in science, mathematics and engineering face when they apply for a visa and subsequently enroll in an academic or exchange program in the U.S.

1.    What is visa checking and how did it get started?

Background

Even before September 11, 2001, Congress had enacted laws to enhance the security of some activities relating to science, technology, and education. In response to events such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, concerns were raised about foreign students in the U.S. as well as the courses they studied and the research they conducted. Then, like now, many were concerned that our openness would provide terrorists easy access to our country. Others were concerned that we were training future terrorists in sensitive areas.

Processing and Approving Visa Applications

For many years, U.S. laws and practice have required certain visa applicants, such as those from certain countries or those wishing to study sensitive technologies, to go through additional security clearances. To assist consular officers in determining who should be subject to this enhanced review, the State Department maintains a Technology Alert List (TAL), which establishes a list of major fields of technology transfer concern, ranging from chemical and biotechnology engineering to lasers, as well as a list of designated state sponsors of terrorism . In light of the terrorist attacks, the State Department increased the number of subjects included on the TAL significantly and added such sub-areas as community development, geography and urban planning. As a result, consular officers are requesting security clearances for more foreign scientists and students whose research or education falls into these sensitive technology categories. This review, known as Visas MANTIS, requires the application to be forwarded to Washington for review and a security advisory opinion to be provided before the consular officer can approve or deny the visa application.

The Administration is in the process of further strengthening the system used to review visa applications, especially as they relate to sensitive technology areas. One month after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the President directed, through Homeland Security Presidential Directive 2 (HSPD-2), that the "[t]he Government shall implement measures to… prohibit certain international students from receiving education and training in sensitive areas." To fulfill the requirements of HSPD-2, the Office of Homeland Security and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy established an interagency working group, and, on May 2002, the White House unveiled its proposal to create a panel that would screen foreign graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and scientists who apply for visas to study "sensitive topics... uniquely available" on U.S. campuses. The screening would be conducted by an Interagency Panel on Advanced Science Security (IPASS), composed of representatives from the major U.S. science agencies as well as the State, Justice, and Commerce department. IPASS would be responsible for evaluating a number of variables on the visa application, including the applicant's background, education and training, country of origin, area of study, training or research, and nature of the work conducted at the college or university as well as the uniqueness of the knowledge, its availability, and the terrorist groups or organizations that wanted to gain access to it.

Although some originally suggested that IPASS could help reduce the backlog of visas, it now appears that the system will overlay and even incorporate some of the existing review systems - not replace them. Most colleges and universities are anxiously awaiting guidance on IPASS, and they are concerned that, if it is implemented incorrectly, the new system could further disrupt the basic workings of their research universities. Mostly, they are concerned that the criteria for the IPASS review could be expanded to include entire areas of study, rather than very specific research and development activities. They are also concerned that the system could apply new restrictions to students after they have begun to study at their institution, for which they were properly granted a visa. The final policy on IPASS, which will be implemented by the Department on Homeland Security, is pending further study.

Finally, the State Department announced in November 2001 that all men between the ages of 16 and 45 from certain Arab and Muslim countries would be subject to a waiting period on nonimmigrant visa applications to conduct additional security screenings, particularly for those in high tech, engineering and science. In practice, this review, known by the name of CONDOR, has been applied to others, male and female, from almost any country.

Prior to 2001, consular officers had broad discretion to clear students and researchers - or to trigger a more thorough check through MANTIS. Even those who were studying sensitive areas of science and technology could be processed in as few as 10 business days - so long as the consular officer did not receive a negative response from Washington, DC. In fact, consular officers were encouraged to facilitate travel and, at some posts, they even faced pressures to issue more visas.

Since the most recent terrorist attacks, however, strengthening the visa process as an antiterrorism tool has taken on greater significance - especially since all 19 of the hijackers entered the U.S. on visas. The State Department has acknowledged the resulting delays and the backlog, and high-level Administration officials have described the current backlog situation as a "crisis". In late 2002, the State Department announced that they would return to a more normal visa processing time as a result of improved interagency and automated procedures. As part of that effort, they released 10,000 visas in the CONDOR backlog. The next month, 105 of those visas were recalled for security reasons. After further review, 70 of the recalled visas were cleared for release. Although the problems with the CONDOR review are being resolved, visa delays in MANTIS persist, despite efforts by the State Department to speed up visa processing.

Currently, there are a number of factors that contribute to the MANTIS backlog. Many are concerned that the TAL is too vague and that consular officers with little or no background in science are misapplying the broad categories. Others believe that the consular officers are using their discretion to err on the side of caution, broadly and subjectively interpreting State Department policies and guidance. Still others have attributed delays in processing visas - and their denial -- to a provision in the 1994 Foreign Authorization Act, which established liability for consular officers who approve visas for applicants who then commit an act of terrorism. Anecdotally, the Committee has been informed that applicants can expect to wait three to nine months for their visa. There also have been reports of an increase in the number of students being denied visas entirely, often based on lack of evidence of a planned return to the home country. Finally, there have been reports that hundreds of foreign scientists, some eminent in their fields, have been blocked from entering the U.S., slowing research on diseases such as AIDS and West Nile virus and in areas such as space science and genetic mapping. More troubling, visa delays and denials have even plagued multi-million dollar research projects funded by the federal government and its agencies - the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and others. Many are concerned that this problem, which has produced an estimated backlog of 25,000 visa applications (most of which relate to science and engineering), persists and may be getting worse.

Monitoring Foreign Students

To improve the tracking of foreign students and scholars, Congress created the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). This system was designed to link colleges and universities with foreign students and scholars with the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and allow them to share information, such as changes in the foreign student's address or educational status, in real time. Although SEVIS was created in 1996, the program was not fully implemented due to lack of funding and objections from the higher education community about the financial costs that colleges and universities would incur. The terrorist attacks in 2001 gave the program new urgency. Two laws, the USA Patriot Act and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, fully funded the program and moved the compliance deadline from 2005 to 2003.

INS launched SEVIS as a voluntary program on July 1, 2002, with mandatory participation for all colleges and universities targeted for January 30, 2003. As the deadline approached, colleges, universities and associations expressed "enormous" compliance concerns. Among other things, they said that they had little information on how to implement the system - and little time to prepare. Even the Department of Justice Inspector General doubted that INS would be able to implement the system by the proposed deadline and cautioned Congress about the need for additional training for staff, school officials and INS inspectors and investigators.

On January 29, 2003, one day before the proposed deadline, INS granted a two-week grace period for mandatory compliance by schools, saying that the delay was to accommodate the schools that were experiencing technical problems. On February 15, SEVIS participation finally became mandatory.

Today, all schools and exchange programs are required to use the program as a condition of accepting foreign students and exchange visitors. INS-approved schools (those certified by the INS to accept foreign students and scholars) and exchange programs must use SEVIS to enter directory information on all foreign students (F-1) and visitors (M-1) at the time they accept the student/visitor's application to their program. When the student or exchange visitor arrives at a U.S. port-of-entry, the school or program is notified through SEVIS that the student/visitor is in the country and should be reporting for class. After the student enrolls, any changes in status (address, course of study, employment) is collected and maintained in SEVIS until the student either completes his or her current program or training and departs the U.S. or changes immigration status. Failure to enroll or falling out of status results notification to the appropriate federal agencies for investigation and enforcement.

Currently, schools are only required use SEVIS to record data on new students/visitors and changes in status for current students and visitors but, on August 1, 2003, information on all students and visitors will need to be maintained - and updated -- in SEVIS.

As a result, colleges and universities are pushing hard for an operational system, but many have a number of specific complaints. Among other things, they continue to express concern about the technological flaws, which cause data to be lost or inaccurate and confidential SEVIS forms to be printed at colleges and universities in other states. They also are concerned about the lack of real time access to the data, saying students often have to wait weeks to apply for their visa because their name is not showing up in the database at the consular officer. Today, colleges and universities estimate that it can take as long as 1.5 hours to enter one student. Finally, they are concerned about the lack of training provided for campus officials and INS staff. This situation is likely to be compounded by the large numbers of foreign students and scholars who will apply to participate in summer exchange and education programs. Between now and August 1, an additional one million individuals will need to be registered in SEVIS, aggravating the technological and other problems that already exist.

Administration and the New Department of Homeland Security

Prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department was responsible for issuing visas to foreign students who wanted to study in the United States. INS was responsible for determining which schools were entitled to accept foreign students, inspecting the documentation of persons arriving with student visas, keeping track of entries and exits of foreign students, monitoring the status of foreign students, facilitating the removal of foreign students when their status ends, and approving requests by aliens who were in the country through some other classification to acquire student status. Responsibility for each of these obligations was divided among several different offices, divisions and branches of the INS and among private contractors.

In the past, INS was criticized for not handling these responsibilities adequately and, on March 1, INS was dissolved and its duties were transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Under the new structure, SEVIS will be administered by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the Department's law enforcement arm - instead of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services - the Department's service arm. Although the same people who were implementing SEVIS prior to the transfer are expected to be administering the program under the new structure, some colleges and universities have expressed concerns about having to deal with two separate bureaus for their foreign students and scholars.

2.    what kind of impacts did the system have on the research and academia in general?

Current Issues

Impact on Science Education and Research in the U.S.

In science and technology, foreign students make up about a third of all graduate students and contribute to the U.S. scientific effort in this capacity. In 1998, foreign students made up 30 percent of graduate students studying science and engineering in the U.S. and 33 percent of U.S. science and engineering doctoral recipients (52 percent in engineering (most foreign doctoral recipients settle in the U.S., although the percentage of those who return to their home country has been increasing), 49 percent in mathematics and computer sciences and 40 percent in physical sciences). Among college and university representatives, there is concern that if the foreign student population is reduced - or these students decide to return to their home country - personnel shortages could grow and U.S. capabilities could decline - especially since U.S. citizens are not currently attracted to these fields in sufficient numbers to replace these students.

According to the Institute of International Education, 582,996 international students attended colleges and universities in the United States in 2002. Yet, colleges and universities are concerned that new review requirements -- and visa delays -- could hamper their ability to compete for top students and scholars. Many report that registered students who have left the country have had difficulty returning - especially for students and scholars from China and India. According to these sources, if the length of their delay is significant it will have a negative impact on their ability to carry out their coursework, thesis research, qualifying exams and thesis defense. One concern is that the restrictions make it undesirable to be an international student in the U.S., and there are anecdotal indications that universities in other countries, such as Germany and Australia, are stepping up recruitment of students that might otherwise attend American institutions.

Finally, if visa delays become routine, foreign students and scholars in the U.S. may be unable to attend international conferences, interview for positions in their home countries and participate in international collaborations. There is anecdotal information about conferences relocating outside the United States to avoid immigration issues, making it harder for U.S. students and researchers to attend and reducing the flow of scientific information. In addition, many major user facilities are fundamentally international in nature, and limiting the ability of foreign researchers to use American facilities like Fermilab could have a negative impact on the ability of U.S. teams to participate in major international facilities

overseas, such as the Large Hadron Collider and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.

 Overarching Questions in the hearings:

The hearing will address the following overarching questions:

• Has the frequency of visa problems, including delays and denials, for foreign students and scholars changed from previous years? What progress has been made in streamlining the process and reducing the current backlog to facilitate legitimate travel for students and scholars?
• What steps have been taken to improve communication between the government agencies that secure the homeland and the institutions that rely on the contributions of foreign students and scholars to advance science and technology?
• When will SEVIS, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, be fully operational, linking government and school officials and enabling them to accurately track foreign students and scholars in real time? What challenges must be overcome before this can happen?

3. what kind of standpoint we should take or possibly rely on in this regard?

• Foreign scientists and scholars are important to maintaining the vitality and quality of the U.S. research enterprise. In fact, almost 35 percent of advanced degrees are conferred upon foreign scholars resident in the U.S. for all areas of science and technology.
• That said, the events of September 11 were a stark reminder of the potential risks posed by foreign students. As a result, the Congress and the Administration took action to track foreign students and more carefully review the applications of those wishing to study sensitive areas of science and technology in the U.S. Colleges and universities have voiced concerns about the unintended consequences of enhanced security on our campuses. Many foreign students and scholars, and especially those from China, India and Russia, have experienced substantial delays in obtaining visas.
• Others have had their visas denied. This has resulted in missed program start dates, derailed scientific research and the loss of potential students and scholars to other destinations. Colleges and universities have also express concern about the implementation of SEVIS, the Student Exchange Visa Information System, which makes the names, residences and educational status of foreign students accessible to immigration officials. According to reports, there are delays in processing students, problems with system compatibility, and even additional delays in visa processing, as student information is not being saved in the database.
• One concern is that the restrictions make it undesirable to be a foreign student or scholar in the U.S., and there are anecdotal indications that universities in other countries, such as Germany and Australia, are stepping up recruitment of students and scholars that might otherwise attend American institutions. Failure to reconcile our equally important, equally legitimate needs for security and science could be a detriment to our education and research communities as well as scientific collaboration and exchange.

4. what did the Consular general or the DOS say about this? Any formal response?

Until recently the DOA and relevant authorities had shown disgracefully barren sympathy or support to victims when confronted with this issue.  As a matter of fact, courtesy does loom afar in the so-called “Notice” from the office.

Bureau of Consular Affairs

Notice on Current Visa Processing Situation

Responding to the attacks of September 11, 2001, the State Department, working with other U.S. Government agencies, has been engaged in an extensive and ongoing review of visa issuing practices as they relate to our national security.

Visa applications are now subject to a greater degree of scrutiny than in the past. Applicants affected by these procedures are informed of the need for additional screening at the time they submit their applications and are being advised to expect delays. The time needed for adjudication of individual cases will continue to be difficult to predict. We recommend that individuals build in ample time before their planned travel date when seeking to obtain a visa.

We recognize that these delays are having an impact on visa applicants, and we have already had success streamlining the process, consistent with our security and legal responsibilities. The State Department is working hard with other government agencies to rationalize clearance procedures in ways that continue to protect US borders, our first priority, while facilitating legitimate travel.

We trust that affected applicants will understand that this waiting period is necessary as we strive to make every effort to ensure the safety and security of the United States for all who are here, including foreign visitors.

November 1, 2002

5. Provided that a travel to our great fatherland is needed and a re-entry visa is aspired, what should we take note of the DHS rule in this regard? What about J-visa? When should we apply? The earlier the better?

DHS ()

Many posts have inquired of the Department about the impact of the recently promulgated DHS rule limiting the entry of students and exchange visitors to thirty days or less prior to the beginning of their program or start date as given on the Form I-20 or DS-2019. For F students the Department of Justice SEVIS final rule amends 8 CFR, Section 214.2(f) to state that, "an F-1 student may be admitted for a period up to 30 days before the indicated report date or program start date listed on Form I-20." The same section states that F-2 dependents are eligible for admission if they are able to demonstrate that the F-1 student has been admitted and is, or will be within 30 days, enrolled in a full course of study, or engaged in approved practical training following completion of studies. Finally for F-1 students (and their F-2 dependents), the regulation states that an F-1 student who has completed a course of study and any authorized practical training following completion of studies will be allowed an additional 60- day period to prepare for departure from the U.S. or to transfer to another school. (See 9 FAM 41.61, N10.1)  

DHS inspectors currently are enforcing the regulation limiting admission of F, M and J nonimmigrants to 30  days or less before their  start/report dates as listed on form I-20/DS-2019. While this regulation does not alter existing FAM guidance regarding when such visas can be issued (see para 8), recipients of these visas should be advised of this DHS regulation. Posts may use the following language to advise F, M and J visa recipients of this regulation: "To all recipients of an F, M, or J student or exchange visitor visa: Please be aware that United States Department of Homeland Security regulations state that holders of F, M, or J nonimmigrant visas will not be admitted to the United States until a date thirty days or less prior to the beginning of your program date, or start date, as given on your Form I-20 (for F or M visas) or DS-2019 (for J visas). Please consider that date carefully when making your travel plans to the United States."

The Department is very cognizant of potential visa processing delays due to new processing requirements, SAO requirements, etc. While we expect that the progress that we and our interagency partners have made in instituting new procedures and in strengthening existing practices will mitigate potential delays, we want to give prospective students and exchange visitors every opportunity to make their start/report dates. Therefore, the Department thanks those posts that have been accepting student visa applications in advance of the 90-day visa issuance limitation, and directs any posts not currently accepting such applications to do so. Recognizing that J visas are subject to less specific timing criteria, the Department appreciates similar flexibility in the acceptance and issuance of these cases as well.

6. what do you mean by “expanded period of security checks”? What the heck does the new system have to do with it? And how?

Many visa-issuing posts are requiring personal interviews with visa applicants and, at the discretion of the reviewing Consular Officer, any application can be referred for a security check. Applications made by male citizens of certain countries must undergo such a check. Because of the current processing times for such checks, it is recommended that visa applications be made no less than three months prior to the intended date of arrival in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, requiring certain non-immigrants who entered the U.S. after September 11, 2002, to register their presence with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They must also update their registration at certain intervals. They must notify Immigration when they intend to depart, and leave only from certain designated airports.

Non-immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria will be subject to Special Registration when they enter the U.S.  People born in these countries may also be included. It is anticipated that individuals from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen will be added. Also, non-immigrants who have made unexplainable trips to Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen may be included.

INS officials at the ports of entry have the discretion to include other individuals not mentioned here.

As of September 11, 2002, anyone applying for an F or J visa stamp at any U.S. Consulate must first be registered on a special U.S. State Department website, by a registered member of International Advising or Admissions.

If you will be traveling and applying for a new visa, please notify International Advising when you apply for an endorsement. We will be asking you to give us this information when you apply for an endorsement. The advisors will register you to guarantee to the consulate that we have issued the I-20/IAP-66/DS-2019 for travel.

All new students are registered at the time that International Admissions issues the I-20.

If you will be applying for a visa stamp on your trip, you will also want to pay attention to this section.

The U.S. has expanded their security check program. Many people, particularly males from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, and South East Asia, and also scholars and scientists in certain fields, are reporting extended delays due to security checks. These delays may be for several weeks, or many months.

7. what if I travel to a third country first to attain the visa or just for a brief visit? What is a SEVIS?

**Transition period February 15 - August 1, 2003 for the implementation of SEVIS.

Since February 15, 2003, all schools are required to issue I-20 forms through SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System), a web-based database mandated by Congress to monitor and track international students. There is a transition period through August 1, 2003 in which current non-SEVIS I-20 forms, properly recertified for travel, may continue to be used as documentation with which to enter the United States. A new SEVIS I-20, however, must be issued to anyone who will be applying for a new visa. All students entering the U.S. in F-1 status on and after August 1 must use a SEVIS I-20.

1. Travel with a passport that will be valid for at least 6 months into the future on the day you return from your trip abroad.

2. Have your Form I-20 recertified as needed.

Recertification is a Designated School Official (DSO) signature from the visa supervisor. Columbia University's Designated School Officials are staff at the International Students and Scholars Office (ISSO) or Immigration Affairs Office (IAO). No other Columbia University employees are authorized by INS to sign the back of the Form I-20. For your I-20 to be recertified, you must have maintained full-time student status and provide financial documentation covering all expenses for one year for both you and any accompanying dependents. Request recertification of your I-20 from the ISSO at least five business days before you plan to leave.

Students in F-1 status are required to have their I-20 recertified once an academic year (September to May), if they travel abroad. During this period, some may feel more comfortable obtaining a travel signature during the spring semester, as well. During this transition period, two versions of forms are permitted. Because of the possible confusion on the part of some immigration inspectors, you are strongly advised to carry a copy of the regulation, which refers to the acceptability of both SEVIS and non-SEVIS I-20s through August 1, 2003.

3. Have an unexpired F-1 entry visa valid for further entries in your passport.

At the U.S. port of entry, a BCBP inspector (Bureau of Customs and Border Protection—formerly INS) will review your form I-20 and return it to you. You will be issued an I-94 card, which will indicate your entry as F-1 and your expiration of stay. Expiration of stay for those in F-1 status is noted as "D/S" (duration of status) on your I-94 card and refers to the completion date on your I-20. If the inspector tells you that you should have a SEVIS form, respectfully show him/her the regulation.

Obtaining a New Entry Visa

If you need to apply for a new entry visa, you must come to the ISSO at least 10 days in advance of your departure to request a new SEVIS I-20 form. You must have a valid F-1 entry visa in your passport to enter the U.S. after a trip abroad. (See possible exceptions under Special Considerations, below). This is essential in addition to having a Form I-20. If your entry visa is no longer valid, you must take your passport, SEVIS I-20, and financial documentation to the nearest US consulate or embassy in the country you are visiting to apply for a new entry visa. If you have ever overstayed your immigration status in the U.S., you may not be allowed to apply for an entry visa in any country except in your country of citizenship or permanent residence. If you have overstayed since issuance of your last entry visa, your entry visa is no longer valid and you are required to obtain a new one in your country of citizenship or residence. Evidence of financial support for your studies in the U.S. must also be presented. It is likely that the BCBP officer will also want to review this documentation at the port of entry. Ideally, especially at a time when consular officers are being extremely cautious, it is best to apply for an F visa in your home country. Plan for processing delays if you apply at a third country.

For travel during periods other than the summer vacation, investigate thoroughly the processing time to obtain a new visa. In general, it is unwise to assume that a new visa will be issued in fewer than 30 days. In some cases, it will take much longer

8. To Mexico or Canada?

If you are traveling only to Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean (except Cuba and Bermuda) for fewer than thirty days, you may return to the U.S. with an expired F-1 entry visa in your passport. To qualify for this privilege, you must:

1. Be in F-1 status
2. Have an unexpired I-94 card with you. Do not surrender the I-94 card when you leave the U.S. If you do, you will need a valid entry visa to reenter the U.S.
3. Have been in lawful status while in the U.S.
4. Have a passport valid at least six months into the future on the day you return
5. Be in one of the destinations named above for fewer than thirty days
6. Must not apply for a U.S. visa while in Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean
   If you apply for a visa while in Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean, you must wait for it to be issued before you return. If your visa application is denied by the American consulate, you are not allowed to use "automatic revalidation" to return to the U.S. and must travel to your country of citizenship to apply for a new visa.
7. Have a current I-20 in your possession
8. Have an F-1 visa (expired or valid) in your passport that matches the immigration status described by your I-94 card (If you have changed your non-immigrant status in the U.S., the visa may correspond to your previous non-immigrant status before the change was granted.)
9. Be a citizen of a country other than Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, or Libya (If you are a citizen of one of these countries, you do not qualify for the privilege of automatic revalidation. You are required to present all documents described under General Information, above, including a valid, unexpired visa for your current immigration status.)

If you are in F-1 status, you must have a valid passport, a valid I-20, and an I-94 card. If your I-94 and I-20 are valid for F-1 status and will not expire during your trip, you are eligible to return to the U.S. even if your visa has expired, unless you have applied for a new visa.

You are required to notify the International Students and Scholars Office (ISSO) or the Immigration Affairs Office (IAO), either in person or in writing, of the completion of your studies or practical training and of the date of your final departure from the United States. Please leave an address with the ISSO or IAO so that you can be contacted if necessary. Before returning home, you should check with your country's consulate to determine customs procedures for bringing personal belongings such as computers back with you.

9.  What kind of security checks are there anyway? What do those people try to pull?

In the wake of the attacks of 9/11/01, the United States Department of State put in place new procedures that are causing severe delays the issuance of US entry visas. The State Department had projected possible delays of up to six months; now the State Department has begun speaking of "indefinite" delays. Two principle security checks are causing extended delays. A third check, the "Name Check", may cause difficulties even if the visitor does not require a new entry visa to reenter the U.S. It is advisable to check the Department of State's web site on Visas for foreign citizens to visit US. if you are considering travel abroad and require a new entry visa to return.

1. The first security check is a lookup against the "Critical Technologies List". This list has existed for many years but was rarely used. This has changed. Many scientists from universities and research centers across the United States are being delayed from returning to the U.S. while awaiting this security clearance. Anyone involved in research or study in the listed fields should expect to undergo this security check by the State Department. The Critical Technological Llist is available on the State Department web site.
2. The second security check involves completion of a new visa application form, the Supplemental Nonimmigrant Visa Application, form DS-157 This form is required of all males between the ages of 16 and 45, except for those with diplomatic status. In addition to completion of DS-157, the State Department requires a further security check for men from countries with large Muslim populations. The list of countries includes those below but there also have been cases of security checks for nationals of countries not on the list.

One last hurdle is the "name check lookup" conducted by the State Department at the time of visa application and by the INS at the port of entry, irrespective of whether the visitor holds a valid visa. This name check has recently resulted in unexpected and severe problems for nonimmigrants--some arising from previous overstay(s), others from discovery of a record of illegal activity in the United States, and others because of mistaken name matches in the database.

10. who is the group that is most likely to be vulnerable in the new system?

Right now as information streams in, the victims most likely to concentrate in science majors such as chemistry, physics and computer technology, almost the same majors most of Chinese students are doing in US.

An abstract from the Document addressing Critical Tech List::

The precedence for identifying select goods as "critical" arose in the 1920s when dependence on foreign imports of certain materials was judged to be a vulnerability for the U.S. military. Accordingly, Congress required that the U.S. maintain a strategic reserve of such "critical materials" in order to ensure readiness in case of military conflict. An extension of the same idea, i.e., that some technologies are critical for military readiness but also as fuel for economic growth, informed the Congress's use of the term in PL 101- 189. In this legislation mandating a critical technologies report, Congress defined "critical technologies" as "essential for the United States to develop to further the long-term national security or economic prosperity of the United States."[1] The phrase "critical technologies" as used in the legislation implies that some technologies are so fundamental to national security or so highly enabling of economic growth that the capability to produce these technologies must be retained or developed in the United States.

Since the requirement for a National Critical Technologies report was established in the 1990 Defense Appropriations Act, several critical technologies lists have come into existence. Various departments and agencies of the Federal government have carried out or publish critical technology assessments, including the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Additionally, a number of private sector lists have been generated. Other industrialized countries have also identified national critical technologies. For example, both Germany and Japan engage in a formal Delphi process involving government, industry and academia to evaluate the importance and status of a broad set of technologies.

This list-making activity should not be seen as redundant. Different lists are generated for different purposes, and the technologies on these lists are selected for their potential to aid in achieving specific goals. That is, the technologies on different lists are "critical" for different reasons. In the case of the critical technologies activities of the Department of Defense, for example, technologies are examined in relation to five Future Joint Warfighting Capabilities most needed by the U.S. Combatant Commands. The Commerce Department's emerging technologies list, published in 1990, was based on market potential dictated by the department's mission to promote and improve commerce. Differing criteria, purposes and legislative references aside, many observers have noted strong similarities between the critical technology lists.[2] In a highly interdependent economy with substantial overlap between civilian and defense applications, this similarity is not surprising. Integrating various critical technologies lists and capturing the similarities--which reveal complex relationships within the economy and between sets of national and sub-national goals--in a consistently aggregated, rationally organized way was the first important task in producing this report.

Because the U.S. economy is broad and technologically advanced, many technologies are important to some aspect of economic prosperity or national security. Choosing those that are "critical" on the national level requires some careful thinking about definitions. The first necessary definition is that of "technologies" since "critical technologies" are a subset of the larger group. Technology involves knowledge. In order to differentiate technology from other forms of knowledge, this report defines technology as knowledge that has the following characteristics:

• Systematized and practical, based on experimentation and/or scientific theory
• May involve new discoveries, current knowledge, or a combination of both
• Directed toward application or achieving a goal rather than only toward understanding
• Involves direct manipulation of materials or biological systems, or the implementation of mathematical algorithms
• Is reproducible and transferable

This definition excludes much basic science which is directed at pure understanding of natural phenomena. However, the definition is broad enough to include knowledge built on scientific understanding and knowledge acquired through experimentation or accident.

Once the realm of "technologies" is defined, it is necessary to define what we mean by "critical." The definition in this National Critical Technologies report assumes that the criticality of a technology is determined by the importance of the application to which the technology is put. That is,

criticality is derived from the importance of the outputs of the system of which the technology is a constituent part, as well as from the significance the technology has for enabling that system

This definition explicitly answers the question "Critical for what?" thereby helping to link policy objectives to choices of technologies. For example, since improvements in education at all levels are considered essential to the future economic prosperity and national security of the United States, education and training software which enables advanced education and training methods and systems is a critical technology that meets the definition above.

Classification and Aggregation Methodology

The National Critical Technologies Report defines "criticality" in the broadest possible way--to "develop and further the long-term national security or economic prosperity of the United States." Thus, this list must be integrative in a fundamental sense, incorporating the diverse concerns and objectives which comprise ideas of security and prosperity and which drive much of the other list-making activity. It must also identify areas not captured in extant lists because they span the concerns or responsibilities of several different agencies or groups.

The 1995 National Critical Technologies list was created through a process of input from multiple constituencies in a traceable and reproducible manner, described in greater detail in Appendix B. The process began with a candidate list which included technologies appearing in the first Report of the National Critical Technologies Panel (March 1991), as well as the lists published by the Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Energy and by NASA. A four-level hierarchical structure was used to integrate lists based on different organizational schemes and levels of aggregation. Sample or illustrative applications to which the technologies contributed were also included, although the list of applications was not expected to be exhaustive. Technology experts were utilized to include knowledge of specific technologies and applications where existing lists did not contain a sufficient level of detail. In addition, the candidate list indicated whether each specific technology contributed primarily to economic prosperity, national security, or both.

The six major technology categories in the 1991 list[3] were changed to seven. The descriptions of the seven categories are shown in Table A.1. The candidate list classified technologies according to the nature of the skills and problems involved in their development, not by the technologies' applications. This focus on underlying technologies rather than applications streamlined the list. Many technologies support multiple applications, so an application-based taxonomy complicates a technology list by forcing the same technology to be placed in multiple categories. Technology focus was also deemed to be more helpful to users because it allowed them to see the breadth of influence of a technology and to determine whether a technology meets their requirements for criticality based on applications it supports.

The post of above articles are just for reference for our students, if there is any copyright issue here, please write to cucssa@columbia.edu we will remove it right away.