Federal Judge Order Suspends Termination of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) Parole Program
On April 14, 2025, a Massachusetts federal district court judge issued a temporary nationwide order suspending the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) termination of the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) parole program. The termination was set to take effect on April 24, 2025, and would have ended parole authorization and any associated benefits, including work authorization for individuals in the United States under the CHNV parole program. The judge’s decision stays or suspends the categorical cancellation of this program.
Quick Hits
A federal district court judge has issued a temporary nationwide order halting the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s termination of the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) parole program, which was set to end on April 24, 2025.
This decision allows individuals under the CHNV parole program to stay in the United States and maintain their work authorizations until their current parole periods expire.
The court’s order provides temporary relief while further litigation is pending, but individuals will need to seek alternative immigration options to remain in the United States beyond their parole periods.
Background
Section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the secretary of homeland security, at the secretary’s discretion, to “parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he [or she] may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States.” Parole allows noncitizens who may otherwise be inadmissible to enter the United States for a temporary period and for a specific purpose.
The Biden administration implemented a temporary parole program for Venezuelans in October 2022, and later expanded the parole program to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguan nationals in January 2023. Individuals within this program apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) in the (c)(11) category. The Biden administration announced in October 2024 that it would not extend legal status for individuals who were permitted to enter the United States under the CHNV parole program, but encouraged CHNV beneficiaries to seek alternative immigration options.
On March 25, 2025, DHS published a Federal Register notice announcing the immediate termination of the CHNV parole program. The termination was set to take effect within thirty days of the date of publication of the notice, or April 24, 2025. On April 14, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, issued a nationwide order staying or temporarily suspending the implementation of the categorical termination of the CHNV parole program.
Key Takeaways
Pending further litigation, the federal district judge’s order results in the following:
Individuals paroled into the United States pursuant to the CHNV parole programs may remain in the United States through their originally stated parole end date.
Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued to individuals admitted under the CHNV parole programs will remain valid through the expiration date listed on the EAD.
Individuals seeking to remain in the United States past the expiration of their parole periods must seek an alternative immigration status to remain in the United States.
Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank Explores Regulatory Risks in Gaming Ecosystems
On April 9, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City published a research briefing examining how video game platforms are reshaping the digital payments landscape. As in-game purchases and platform-based transactions grow in volume and complexity, these developments are raising new regulatory concerns for both federal and state banking regulators.
The global video game industry generated nearly $190 billion in revenue in 2024, largely fueled by the increase in popularity of free-to-play models, in-game purchases, and subscription offerings. These approaches have fundamentally changed how the video game industry is monetized. Rather than relying on one-time game sales, many platforms are now relying on ongoing microtransactions, charging users small amounts for in-game content, upgrades, or access on a recurring basis. This shift has caught the attention of regulators, evidenced by the CFPB issuing an Issue Spotlight in April 2024, titled “Banking in Video Games and Virtual Worlds”, which analyzed the increased commercial activity within online video games and virtual worlds and the apparent risks to consumers—in this case, to online gamers (previously discussed here).
Overview of the Research Briefing
To support these business models, platforms have expanded the types of payments they accept, layering in credit and debit cards, digital wallets, and prepaid in-game currency. Many platforms also offer installment options at checkout. Most recently, some are exploring instant payments as a way to improve efficiency and reduce costs, especially for small-dollar transactions.
Unlike traditional card payments, instant payments settle in real time and often come with lower processing fees. That pricing difference could give platforms more flexibility in how they price in-game content. Instead of requiring players to buy a $10 bundle of in-game currency to access a $2 item, platforms could offer direct purchases—making prices more transparent and lowering the barrier for occasional or budget-conscious users. Faster payments may also help with subscription billing by reducing failed payments tied to expired cards or insufficient funds.
Adoption of instant payments in the U.S. still lags behind other countries, where some platforms already support local real-time payment systems. As the use of instant payments grows, regulators may also take a closer look at whether existing consumer protection frameworks are keeping up.
Regulatory Concerns
The report notes that the CFPB has identified several risks tied to gaming payments, including lack of transparency around pricing, unauthorized charges, and aggressive use of consumer data. Some platforms personalize offers or pricing based on player behavior, raising concerns about fairness and consent. As the use of virtual currencies and recurring charges becomes more common, regulators are questioning whether existing consumer protections adequately apply to these models.
The report also highlights security as another area of concern. Platforms now use behavioral analytics, tokenization, two-factor authentication, and other tools to prevent fraud and protect payment data. While these measures reduce friction and improve user experience, they also raise questions about how personal data is collected, stored, and used—particularly as the line between gaming and financial services continues to blur.
The report also flags concerns surrounding money laundering. In-game items and currency can often be exchanged for real money, sometimes outside official channels. That has created openings for illicit finance, even though most gaming companies aren’t subject to AML or KYC requirements. As the flow of real funds through these platforms increases, regulators may revisit whether additional oversight is warranted.
Putting It Into Practice: The CFPB and state financial regulators are signaling a growing interest of the gaming industry, particularly where in-game economies begin to resemble consumer financial products. Gaming providers would be wise to proactively assess how their business models could create compliance risk.
Listen to this post
Digital Dollars, Not Investments: SEC Staff Weighs in on Stablecoins
On April 4, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement clarifying that reserve-backed U.S. dollar stablecoins are not securities, at least under current law and circumstances. The nonbinding guidance marks the latest effort by SEC staff to articulate the boundaries of the agency’s jurisdiction in an evolving crypto regulatory landscape.
Stablecoins are blockchain-based digital assets that are typically pegged to traditional currencies like the U.S. dollar (we previously discussed the stablecoin market here). The statement addresses “Covered Stablecoins”—those pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by sufficient low-risk, liquid assets, so as to allow a Covered Stablecoin issuer to fully honor redemptions on demand. Covered Stablecoins are designed to maintain a stable value by being fully backed by reserves equal to or greater than the total amount of that stablecoin in circulation. The issuer allows users to mint or redeem these stablecoins at a fixed rate of $1 per coin (or the corresponding fraction), at any time and in any quantity.
The SEC staff noted that these tokens are marketed for use in payments, money transmission, or storing value, not as speculative investments. SEC staff reasoned that because buyers are not motivated by profit, and the tokens do not confer ownership rights or returns, the transactions involved in minting and redeeming such stablecoins do not require registration under federal securities law.
While the staff’s position offers some comfort to stablecoin issuers, it is not a formal rule and carries no legal force.
Putting It Into Practice: This development comes as Congress considers legislation to establish a regulatory framework for stablecoins. The House Financial Services Committee recently advanced the STABLE Act with bipartisan support (previously discussed here). The SEC’s also announcement comes amid a broader trend of various federal regulators recalibrating their approach to digital assets (previously discussed here, here, and here). As stablecoin regulation begins to take shape, market participants should continue to carefully monitor this space for further developments.
Listen to this post
CFPB Announces It Will Not Prioritize Oversight of Repeat Offender Registry
On April 11, the CFPB announced that it will not prioritize enforcement or supervision against nonbank financial companies that miss registration deadlines under its Repeat Offender Registry. The Bureau also stated that it is considering a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind or narrow the scope of the rule, finalized in 2024, that established the registry.
Under the rule (previously discussed here) covered nonbanks subject to covered orders will be required to submit certain corporate identity information, administrative information, and information regarding the covered order (e.g., copies of the order, issuing agencies or courts, effective and expiration dates, and laws found to have been violated). In addition, the final rule will require covered nonbanks to file annual reports attesting to their compliance with the registered orders. The rule’s compliance deadlines are as follows:
April 14, 2025 for nonbanks already subject to CFPB supervision; and
July 14, 2025 for all other covered nonbanks.
In its press release, the Bureau stated that the temporary non-enforcement policy applies to these deadlines and that it will instead focus enforcement and supervision efforts on more pressing threats to consumers.
Putting It Into Practice: The CFPB’s decision to deprioritize enforcement and consider rescinding the registry rule reflects a broader shift away from regulatory initiatives finalized under the prior administration (previously discussed here and here). While the move eases near-term compliance pressure, it may invite greater attention from state regulators and consumer advocates concerned about regulatory gaps. Nonbank financial institutions should prepare for a shifting landscape of federal and state supervision going forward.
Listen to this post
New Immigration Registration Rule for Foreign Nationals (US)
Effective April 11, 2025, certain foreign nationals in the US must register online with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), while others are already registered based on their status. This requirement is based on a 1940 law that mandates every foreign national who is in the US for 30 days must be registered and fingerprinted and DHS issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) to update the registration regulations, introducing a new online process for unregistered foreign nationals.
Who Needs to Register:
Registration is required for all foreign nationals staying in the United States for more than 30 days who are not already registered, or do not already hold a document that qualifies as registration. This includes:
Foreign nationals who entered without inspection (EWI): Anyone seeking to stay in the US more than 30 days without having been officially inspected and admitted by US authorities.
Visa-exempt Canadians: Those entering the US for business or tourism at a land port of entry, but were not issued a Form I-94, and staying for 30 days or more.
Foreign nationals turning 14 years of age: Those who have been in the US for 30 days or more, regardless of previous registration status, with some exceptions, must register or re-register within 30 days after turning 14 and undergo fingerprinting.
Individuals Already Registered and Those Exempt from the Registration Requirement:
Most foreign nationals already in the US, pursuant to a lawful admission as a visitor or a nonimmigrant worker, do not need to register if they were issued any of the following documents:
An immigrant or non-immigrant visa, issued by a US Consulate;
A green card (permanent resident card);
An I-94 admission record (received by nearly all entrants at airports or land entry points);
An employment authorization document (EAD);
Humanitarian parole under INA 212(d)(5), even if the period of parole has expired;
A Notice to Appear (NTA) issued when a foreign national is placed into deportation proceedings; or
A border crossing card.
In addition, the following are exempt from the registration requirement:
Diplomats holding A or G visas;
Those in the US for less than 30 days; and
Certain Native Americans born in Canada who entered the United States under INA, Section 289.
Registration Process:
Individuals required to register must create a USCIS account, including separate accounts for children. Detailed registration requirements and steps are available on the USCIS website. The process involves:
Completing Form G-325R (Biometric Information) online through the USCIS website.
Submitting biometric data (e.g., fingerprints) and undergoing a background check.
Upon successful registration, downloading and printing the “Proof of Alien Registration” document from their myUSCIS account.
Legal Obligations of Proof of Registration and Change of Address:
Those who are obligated to register will receive a “Proof of Alien Registration” document in their myUSCIS account, which they must print and carry at all times.
Those who don’t need to register must still carry proof of registration at all times (e.g., those with an I-94 must carry a copy of the I-94).
All foreign nationals, including those exempt from this registration requirement, must notify USCIS, through submission of Form AR-11, of any residential address change within 10 days.
Acceptable Proof of Registration Documents for Those Who Don’t Need to Register:
A valid, unexpired electronic Form I-94 admission record (available online).
An I-797 approval notice, which typically includes the I-94 record.
A US Customs and Border Protection passport admission stamp.
A Form I-551 Permanent Resident Card (green card).
A Form I-766 Employment Authorization Document (EAD).
Consequences of Not Registering, Carrying Proof, or Timely Reporting Change of Address:
Foreign nationals who are 18 years or older must carry proof of registration at all times. Failure to comply with registration requirements carries serious penalties:
Willful failure or refusal to register: A misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $5,000, imprisonment up to six months, or both.
Failure to carry proof of registration: A misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $5,000, imprisonment up to 30 days, or both.
Failure to report a change of address: A misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $5,000, imprisonment up to 30 days, or both, and potential detention or removal unless the failure was reasonably excusable or not willful.
Key Takeaways:
The new DHS online registration rule aims to streamline compliance with INA requirements but imposes strict obligations on specific noncitizen groups. Noncompliance can lead to severe legal consequences, including fines, imprisonment, or removal. Affected individuals should promptly register, carry proof of registration, and seek legal counsel if their immigration status is unclear. Squire Patton Boggs will continue to monitor developments regarding the Alien Registration Requirement and post relevant updates.
CLEAR, UNMISTAKABLE, COMPELLING: Court Compels Arbitration Based On Inclusion Of AAA Rules
Hey, TCPAWorld!
The District of Utah just issued a defendant-friendly decision staying a case and compelling arbitration. See generally Christiansen v. Desert Rock Cap., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00808, 2025 WL 1135598 (D. Utah Apr. 17, 2025). This case serves as a straightforward reminder of the importance of including an arbitration provision that clearly delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and incorporates the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules.
In Christiansen, Plaintiff Christiansen applied for and was issued a loan from Defendant Desert Rock Capital, Inc. (“Desert Rock”). In the loan documents, Christiansen consented to be contacted by Desert Rock for “potential extensions of credit, marketing and advertisement, and any other business purpose.” Id. at *1. He also agreed to resolve “[a]ny and all controversies, claims, alleged breaches or disputes arising out of or relating in any way” to the loan documents through arbitration and to waive his ability to bring a class action. Id.
In the lawsuit, Christiansen alleged that Desert Rock called and texted him advertisements despite being on the national DNCR and despite his repeated DNC requests. Accordingly, he brought claims under the TCPA’s national DNCR and internal DNC provisions. In response, Desert Rock moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to stay the case and compel arbitration.
In deciding this motion, the Court first explained that it must enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. And where there is “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, then it must be submitted to the arbitrator and is not for the court to decide. The Tenth Circuit has found this standard to be met where an arbitration agreement incorporates the AAA rules.
Although Christensen disputed the validity of the arbitration agreement and its applicability to the dispute, the Court rejected this argument because the loan documents explicitly referenced the AAA rules. Accordingly, the Court found the “clear and unmistakable” evidence standard to be met with respect to the issue of arbitrability.
And while Desert Rock sought dismissal of the complaint, the Court explained that “[w]hen a federal court finds that a dispute is subject to arbitration, and a party has requested a stay of the court proceedings pending arbitration, the court does not have discretion to dismiss the suit on the basis that all the claims are subject to arbitration.” Id. at *4 n.26 (quoting Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 475-76 (2024), and noting the Tenth and Seventh Circuits’ agreement). Per the Supreme Court’s instruction, the Court therefore stayed the case and compelled arbitration.
Until next time.
Insider Strategies for Wage and Hour Compliance Success: One-on-One with Paul DeCamp [Video]
Wage and hour compliance often presents complex challenges for employers, with unclear regulations and changing enforcement priorities.
Addressing these issues proactively and resolving potential disputes are vital for maintaining compliance and reducing risks.
In this one-on-one interview, Epstein Becker Green (EBG) attorney Paul DeCamp sits down with fellow EBG attorney George Whipple to offer his seasoned perspective on wage and hour matters. Tapping into his experience as the former head of the Wage and Hour Division under President George W. Bush, Paul provides an insider’s view of government enforcement priorities, compliance pitfalls, and the complexities employers face when disputes arise.
The conversation explores how to quantify wage and hour compliance risks, prepare for investigations, and evaluate potential vulnerabilities through the lens of a third-party observer. Paul also reflects on changes in the post-Chevron era, discussing how shifting judicial approaches to agency authority create both challenges and opportunities for employers navigating regulatory frameworks.
With an extensive career spanning public service and private practice, Paul delivers actionable advice designed to help employers safeguard their organizations, remain adaptable to legal developments, and respond thoughtfully to wage and hour concerns.
Private Market Talks: Navigating Turbulence with Adams Street Partners’ Bill Sacher [Podcast]
With over $62 billion of AUM, Adams Street is a global investor in private equity and private credit. It invests in over 450 global general partners in private equity and directly invests in private credit. As such, Adams Street has a unique window into these private markets. Bill Sacher sits on the firm’s Investment Committee and is Global Head of Private Credit. During our conversation, Bill discusses how Adams Street is navigating today’s rapidly changing market dynamics.
FCC’s POWER CUT: Fifth Circuit Guts FCC’s Ability to Issue Forfeiture Orders And this is Completely Game Changing
Not long ago we covered the story of an FCC forfeiture penalty issued against Telnyx related to a robocall scam targeting the FCC itself.
The Commission had determined Telnyx seemingly violated vague know-your-customer rules and was set to hit Telnyx with a multi-million dollar penalty. Telnyx fought back aggresively but the FCC was still left to determine how much it would fine Telnyx for the behaviour.
If that seems weird its because it is.
The FCC was simultaneously acting as victim, witness, prosecutor, judge and jury.
Telnyx’ response noted that Commission staff that received calls at issue should recuse themselves since they were directly involved with the underlying claim– which just makes common sense.
But there is a larger issue– one that AT&T just used to its high advantage. The FCC is weighing the evidence and then imposing a penalty without a court or a jury’s involvement.
And that, my friends, rather obviously violates the Constitution.
None of us can be harmed in any way without: i) a law that makes conduct illegal in place before we engaged in illegal conduct; and ii) a judge and/or jury determining that we, in fact, violated that law based on admissible evidence.
That’s the bedrock of due process and the bedrock of what makes us “free.”
But AT&T was recently denied that freedom by the FCC when it unilaterally determined AT&T was guilty of misusing consumer data and fined it $57MM without a jury’s involvement.
And while that might not sound too scary–I mean, why was AT&T misusing customer location data?–consider that Mr. Trump has recently ordered the FCC to do his exclusive bidding. In theory allowing the FCC to unilaterally determine and assign penalties to any communications company in America could very quickly escalate into something highly political and unpleasant.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals cut all of that off at the pass, however, with a ruling in favor of AT&T holding the FCC’s actions violated the constitution.
In AT&T v. FCC the Court determined the forfeiture penalty at issue was a remedy akin to damages and not akin to equitable relief. The difference is critical– Americans (and companies) have a right to a jury and judge determinations for any relief that is properly considered a damage recovery. Further although the FCC argued it had the exclusive right to determine matters related to common carriers as a “public right” the Court disagreed noting claims against common carriers are often litigated by private rights in court.
The ruling itself is pretty straightforward: outside of very narrow situations, no penalties can be handed down in this country without a judge and jury. There were no exceptions to that rule present here. So out goes the award.
So where does this leave the FCC’s forfeiture power?
Well, unless there is an appeal to the Supreme Court–probably will be–I’d say it is dead, at least in so far as the penalties handed down are monetary awards. That is a MASSIVE change for the FCC that has just lost one of its most potent enforcement tools.
One wonders whether other extra-judicial penalties– such as “shut down orders” targeting intermediate and upstream carriers permitting robocalls to traverse their network–might also be set aside under this doctrine. Very fascinating to consider how deeply this new ruling cuts.
For now though, AT&T gets to walk away from $57MM in penalties–it already paid the money so will be curious to see how it gets it back– and Telnyx is sitting pretty.
Will keep an eye on all of this.
A New Chapter in FCPA Enforcement: State Attorneys General Take Action to Enforce Violations
In a significant shift, California’s Attorney General announced his intention to enforce violations of the FCPA by businesses operating in California under the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
A cornerstone of U.S. anti-bribery and anti-corruption policy, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has for decades fallen exclusively to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce, providing a relatively stable and predictable enforcement environment for corporations and individuals engaged in international business. However, this predictability was upended this past February.
In response to a February 10 executive order temporarily suspending federal enforcement of the FCPA — which prompted the DOJ to review active FCPA matters, postpone trial dates, and, in at least one case, voluntarily dismiss charges — California has moved swiftly to assert its own enforcement authority. On April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a legal advisory signaling his office’s intent to enforce FCPA violations under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) — the federal government’s temporary pause notwithstanding.
Specifically, the advisory explains that the FCPA continues to impose binding obligations on California businesses and that violations of the statute may give rise to liability under the UCL, which prohibits “unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. The UCL’s broad reach allows the Attorney General to “borrow” violations of other laws, including federal statutes like the FCPA, and pursue them as independently actionable violations under state law. The advisory underscores the range of remedies available to the California Attorney General in such cases, including civil penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.
State-Level FCPA Enforcement: California at the Forefront
While California is currently leading the way, the question remains whether other states will adopt a similar approach. Several factors suggest this could be the beginning of a broader trend:
1. State attorneys general have increasingly positioned themselves as active enforcers in the face of shifting federal priorities.
This is particularly true when those shifts touch on matters of consumer protection, public integrity, and corporate accountability.
2. Many states possess statutes analogous to California’s UCL.
Commonly referred to as Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) laws, these provide state-level enforcement mechanisms against a broad range of unlawful or deceptive business practices. Some UDAP laws, such as New York’s General Business Law § 349, require a showing of consumer harm, while others (such as California’s UCL) allow enforcement actions without the need to demonstrate direct consumer injury. Enforcement authorities in states with laws similar to California’s UCL are well-positioned to leverage them against conduct traditionally addressed under the FCPA.
Whether other state attorneys general will follow California’s lead remains to be seen, but the shifting enforcement landscape demands careful attention, as scrutiny from state-level enforcement may soon fill the gaps left by the DOJ’s recalibrated approach.
3. Unlike the FCPA, private litigants have an independent, private right of action under California’s UCL that empowers them to bring civil actions — suggesting the potential viability of leveraging FCPA violations as the predicate misconduct for UCL claims.
Indeed, Attorney General Bonta’s Advisory and accompanying press release may serve as such a signal to the UCL plaintiffs’ bar. This prospect may be particularly attractive in the current enforcement climate, where some federal FCPA actions are temporarily paused or dropped altogether.
Under the UCL, private plaintiffs who can demonstrate that they have “suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of unfair competition” may pursue claims for relief if they can meet the necessary standing requirements, including demonstrating that an economic injury was causally linked to the alleged misconduct. But in certain circumstances, companies with international operations may be face significant financial exposure associated with alleged FCPA/UCL violations.
Against this backdrop, the most immediate and obvious targets for California state enforcement are likely to be companies with operations in California that were previously charged in federal FCPA cases but are now seeing their matters dismissed following DOJ’s ongoing review. In addition, any “whistleblower” allegations of foreign bribery may now grab the attention of state enforcement authorities.
Fragmented Authority and the Future of FCPA Enforcement
While California’s legal advisory signals a new direction for FCPA enforcement at the state level, the practical realities of international anti-corruption investigations raise significant questions about the scope and effectiveness of such efforts.
Unlike the DOJ, state attorneys general lack dedicated federal investigative resources such as the FBI and typically do not maintain established channels of communication and cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies. These structural limitations could pose serious challenges for state-led enforcement of complex, cross-border bribery schemes.
At the same time, the federal enforcement landscape is also shifting. Under recently revised DOJ policy, each of the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices throughout the country now have greater authority to initiate and prosecute FCPA-related matters without the need for oversight or direct involvement from DOJ’s Fraud Section, provided the conduct can be framed as “foreign bribery that facilitates the criminal operations of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs).”
Takeaways
This development marks a significant shift in the FCPA enforcement landscape, particularly in light of the current administration’s recent pronouncements and policies limiting federal enforcement of the statute. In this evolving environment, companies would be well-advised to reassess their anti-corruption compliance programs to ensure they account not only for federal enforcement risks, but also for the growing likelihood of state-level investigations, enforcement actions, and private causes of action.
International Students Face Visa Revocations and Status Terminations – What Does that Mean for Higher Education Institutions?
Over the past two weeks, institutions of higher education have been faced with the challenges of notifying members of their campus communities about visa revocations and status terminations, and advising affected international students on what to do next. Unlike more high-profile immigration cases that followed student protest activity, the latest round of visa revocations and status terminations appear to be happening because students are “failing to maintain status.” But what does that mean and how should institutions react?
To understand the impact, the meaning of key terms like “visa” and “status,” have to be understood, because they are distinct concepts in U.S. immigration law. When people speak of how long someone can stay in the United States, they might say “their visa expires in June” or “they have to leave because their visa is expiring,”; such statements are technically incorrect, however, because they confuse a visa with status.
While a visa is a critical immigration document, it does not actually determine how long someone can stay in the United States. A visa is issued by the U.S. government and allows a noncitizen to apply for entry to the country, but does not guarantee that the noncitizen will be actually allowed to enter or remain in the United States. In contrast, a noncitizen’s status determines how long and under what conditions they can stay in the United States. Notably, noncitizens can change status, for example from F-1 student status to H-1B specialty occupation status, without ever leaving the United States.
Most higher education students come to study in the United States. on an F-1 student visa. F-1 visas are issued by the U.S. Department of State. Once students enter the United States., they are granted F-1 student status, and their F-1 status is tracked by the Department of Homeland Security’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). As long as a student continues to maintain their F-1 student status, the requirements of which are set by law, they are permitted to remain in the United States.
While visa revocations have not traditionally been common, they are a tool available to immigration authorities. One of the scenarios that has historically led to visa revocation is an arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) leading to a visa revocation on health-related grounds (on the basis of suspected alcoholism or other substance abuse issues). A visa revocation, while significant, only impacts a person’s ability to return to the United States. following international travel. It does not impact status. An F-1 student can have their F-1 visa revoked, expire or cancelled, but can still remain in the United States with their valid F-1 student status.
Termination of status, however, ends a person’s permission to stay in the United States. A student’s F-1 student status can be terminated if a student “fails to maintain status” or due to an agency “termination of status.” Historically, a student’s failure to maintain their F-1 status was reported by the colleges and universities themselves if, for example, an international student engaged in unauthorized employment, failed to maintain a full course of study, or was convicted of certain crimes. The agency-initiated termination of status is limited by statute.
During the past two weeks, the U.S. government has changed its practices related to visa revocations and status terminations, and has begun terminating international students’ F-1 student status, either in addition to or instead of revoking their F-1 visas. As a result, F-1 students whose F-1 student status has been terminated no longer have permission to stay in the United States, even if they have a valid F-1visa.
Institutions are finding out about students’ F-1 status terminations by auditing their SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) record. SEVIS is a web-based system that colleges and the Department of Homeland Security use to maintain information about F-1 students. In some cases, students report being unaware that their F-1 status had been terminated until they receive outreach from their school after such audits, because they received no communication from the U.S. government about their status termination.
These changes have caused stress and uncertainty for institutions of higher education and their international students. In light of concerns expressed by higher education clients, we suggest that clients and higher education institutions work closely with in-house counsel, and recommend international student offices to keep abreast of the latest developments in this area. Specifically, colleges and universities should:
Regularly check SEVIS to determine if students’ F-1 status has been terminated and communicate any developments to the affected students as soon as possible.
Prepare to refer international students to immigration lawyers for individualized assistance. Many institutions of higher education have referral lists, but legal clinics available on some campuses are also an option.
Consider options for international students who may choose to leave the United States, specifically how they can continue their studies or transfer to another college or university in their home country. These considerations may be especially important or acute for graduate-level students engaged in fellowships, research, and TA-ships on campus.
Prepare for possible federal immigration enforcement activity on or around campus, including the types of requests for information federal agencies might make, and the institution’s obligations under state and federal law.
Develop and implement a plan to handle campus community and leadership, local community, and political concerns. In addition to planning for internal and external communications, expect that individual immigration cases and class action lawsuits related to F-1 visa revocations and F-1 status terminations may occur.
The Non-Compliant Cat in the Hat
So, just before Easter, in 1957, a little book you may have heard of, called The Cat in the Hat, made its first appearance. Theodore Geisel — writing under the name “Dr. Suess” — later said that of all his children’s books, he was proudest of this one, because “it had something to do with the death of the Dick and Jane primers,” which he thought would bore any child to tears. In honor of this occasion, here are a few “fun facts” about the book that has taught millions of children how to read:
Geisel was given a word list by his publisher and told that he needed to work them into his book. He was so frustrated with this approach that he decided to scan the list and instead create a story based on the first two words he saw that rhymed, which were “cat” and “hat.”
The Cat in the Hat has been translated into 12 languages, including Latin, where it bears the title “Cattus Petasatus.”
In 1999, the U.S. Postal Service issued a stamp featuring the Cat in the Hat.
The NY Public Library’s list of “Top 10 Checkouts of All Time” shows The Cat in the Hat as number 2. But we imagine it would be ranked number 1 if Dr. Suess had stuck with his original text, which was titled …
The Non-Compliant Cat in the Hat
Work was all dreary, meetings set for all day,As we reviewed Outlook, grayed out all the way.I sat there with Sally, we sat there, we two.And I said, “How I wish we had something better to do!”
But with meetings and Zoom all we could do was to
Sit!Sit!Sit!Sit!
And these interns did not like it, not one little bit.
And then … something went BUMP!How that bump made us jump!We looked! And what we saw was better than our Slack chat!We looked! And we saw him! The Non-Compliant Cat in a Hat!
The hat was all crazy, it had slogans galore!That made fun of our procedures, and said “Compliance’s a snore!”And “internal controls, are great, for do-nothing bores!”And “training is worse than fourteen bedsores!”
And he threw the door aside, it clanged with a bang,In strutted a Cat with that hat that just sang!“Hello, my dear interns! Why so glum and so sad?I’ve come to bring fun, let’s make this less drab!”
Sally looked at the Cat with a skeptical stare,“Who are you, and what’s with that hat and that hair?”“Oh, I’m the Cat, and I’m here to have fun!Forget all the rules; let’s get this day done!”
But just then, from a bowl on the corner desk bright,Swam a Fish in a bowl, trying to bring compliance to light.“Please listen to me! Don’t let chaos unfold!The rules are important, their value is gold!”
But the Cat just laughed, waving a paw in the air,“Who’s heard of a CCO Fish? And why should we care?”There’s so many fun things, let’s send out this contract,To send goods to Iran, we won’t tell OFAC!”
“Compliance screening, well we’ll steer clear of that,And play a good game, it’s called ‘Let’s Ship It Fast!’We’ll send our great goods, to any place that will buy —Even to Iran, where demand’s flying high!”
The Fish started gasping: “You’d cause us much pain,Such shipping’s forbidden, compliance down the drain!Sanctions and penalties, fines and disgrace,If we follow your tricks, it’s jail we’d face!Hey! You two interns, can’t you see what’s at stake?If you follow this Cat, big trouble you’ll wake!”
“Oh, Fishy, relax! You’re such a drag,All you care about is waving the compliance flag!If you’re so scared of OFAC, let’s play ‘Let’s Bribe with a Fish,’In some places, it’s harmless, and really delish!”
But the Fish would not have it, his voice was quite stern,“Now, Cat, that’s a violation, and work we should spurn!Anti-corruption rules are clear, offering fishy quid pro quo,Could cause us all trouble, if about it we know!And what do you mean, when you say ‘its delish?’I especially dislike bribes that involve eating this Fish!”
“Have no fear!” said the Cat, “there’s so much we can do!If we are not stuck in the compliance glue!Let’s skip the audits! Who needs those old things?And trade secrets? Hacking’s fun, let’s see what that brings!Who needs policies, forms, and approvals galore?I’ll say it again, compliance’s a bore!”
And the Cat, then he said, “silly Fish, don’t be mad —I just want to show them some fun to be had!How about a game? We’ll call it ‘Price Fixing Fun!’We’ll chat with competitors to help everyone!How silly it is, to keep our prices so low,When a chat or a call could make profits grow!”
But the Fish swam around in his bowl, oh so fast,This new game made the CCO Fish quite aghast!“Antitrust law says ‘No way! Conspiring’s forbidden today!’You will all land in jail, price fixing’s illegal per se!”So, Cat, take your tricks to some other place!Your understanding of compliance is very off-base!”
But the Cat was undeterred, by our compliance construct,As he hopped and he jumped onto our Code of Conduct.“Look at me! Look at me! Look at me NOW!Non-compliance is fun, but you have to know how!”
“I can ship controlled goods, use a license that’s fake,Waiting for BIS, that would make my mind ache!I can cook these books! Hide agents all on the take!Accounting accuracy is for nerdy fruit cakes!”
“From your Code of Conduct, I can jump on this desk!Your mindless compliance, I find quite grotesque!I can bribe with aplomb, the hot line I’ll finesse!But that is not all. Oh, no. That is not all, I guess ….”
That is what the Cat said … then he fell on his head!Knocking off his hat, on the Code of Conduct he went!He knocked down the Fish, who fell into a pot!Who said, “Would HR approve Fish assault, no they would not!”
“Now look what you did,” said the Fish to the Cat.“Our compliance’s a mess, we’ll never get it back!You’ve bribed everyone, conspired to fix prices, too!Shipped goods to Iran, flushed our controls down the loo!”You SHOULD NOT be here, undermining our compliance, so true,It helps us control risk and makes sure fines don’t accrue!”
“You’ve crossed too many lines!” cried the Fish with despair,“Of our published red flags, you were never aware!The auditors are coming, and they won’t be so nice!You followed no rules, now you’ll pay a great price!”
“But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot!”Said the Cat who loves hats, to the Fish in the pot.“I will NOT go away. I do NOT wish to go!And so,” said the Cat, “so, so, so ….”
“I will show you another good game that I know!”
And then he ran out, he practically flew,Then he came back, with compliance gurus!“Now look at this trick,” said the Cat, with a grin,Let’s play one last game, called ‘Comply and We Win!’”
“The compliance gurus, named Risk One and Risk Two,Know compliance failures are things that could bite you.These compliance gurus, with their suits oh-so-neat,For controlling risk, their controls can’t be beat!”
And Sally and I, did not know what to do.So we had to shake hands, with Risk One and Risk Two.But CCO Fish said, “No! No! Those gurus, please make them flee,Risk is managed through our controls, and should always be!”
“Have no fear, little Fish,” said the Cat with the Hat.“Let Risk One and Risk Two work,” and he gave them a pat.“You will see they will say, what I did was not bad,Sure I skirted some rules, but you’ll see they’re not mad!”
But what they next said, turned the Cat’s words right on their head,As they surveyed the damage, they put his non-compliance to bed!“You see,” said Risk One, “This Cat’s right out of line!No checks, no controls, compliance far from divine!”And Risk Two added, “This Cat needs training, that much is clear!Policies are great, but only if everyone adheres!”
The Cat looked remorseful, his fun now all gone,And he stared at his Hat, that started the non-compliance run.He took a deep breath, as realization it dawned,That controlling risk, is everyone’s bond.“Let’s fix all the chaos, I now see what I’ve done,It never works out, doing compliance end runs!”
Then the CCO Fish said, “Look! Look!” And our Fish shook with fear,“The auditors are coming! They are on their way here!Oh, what will they do to us? What will they say?Oh, they will not like finding compliance circumvented this way!”
“So, DO something! Fast!” said the Fish. “Do you hear!I saw them. The auditors! The auditors are near!So, as fast as you can, think of something to do!Do your best, Risk One and Risk Two! Show you’re compliance gurus!”
So Risk One and Risk Two, moved at a fast pace,To reassert compliance, from last to first place!“You can’t ship to Iran!” Risk One said with a frown,“That’s OFAC’s rule, so let’s break it all down.”Risk Two wagged a finger, “No bribing with fish!With or without lemon, let’s cancel that wish!”
They sorted each paper, they checked every box,They tightened procedures, secured every lock.“Compliance,” they chanted, “is here to stay!We’ll make sure this company acts the right way!”Then Risk One and Risk Two, well they dragged out the bad Cat,Who barely managed to first grab his sad hat.
Then the auditors came in, and they said to us two,“Did you work very hard? Tell me. What did you do?Did you follow our controls, compliance earning all plaudits,What will we find, if we do a quick audit?”
And Sally and I did not know, what to say, what to do.Should we tell the things, that today we did do?Should we tell them about it? Now, what SHOULD we do?
Well … what would YOU do, if the auditors asked YOU?