nonimmigrants would not, in most cases, prevent eligible aliens in those classes from eventually entering the United States as immigrants, but would merely penalize them by forcing them to make an unnecessary journey to their home country to obtain a visa and return to the United States. In the absence of evidence of idespread abuse of the F, H and L visa as a vehicle to seek adjustment, the exclusion of F, H, and L nonimmigrants from the benefits of section 245 would, in the Department's opinion, be unwarranted. Section 2 of the proposed bill refers to paragraph (1) of section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Undoubtedly the reference intended was section 101 (a) (15) (L). The bill would amend that provision by imposing limitations on the admission of intracompany transferees. The amendment would add a proviso restricting the number of "L" petitions that could be approved for any one employer to 5 percent of the number of managerial or executive personnel employed by the petitioner at any given time. Incidentally, we believe the words "visas approved" should read "petitions approved." The amendment would also eliminate the present provision in behalf of aliens who will be employed in a capacity that involves "specialized knowledge." The Department favors deletion of the provision for persons of "specialized knowledge" from section 101(a)(15)(L). The term "specialized knowledge" is ambiguous, facilitates circumvention of the stricter requirements of section 101(a) (15) (H) (ii) for temporary workers, and lends itself to abuse. However, the proviso to section 2, if taken literally, would preclude firms with less than 20 managerial or executive employees from bringing intracompany transferees, since one such employee constitutes 5 percent of 20. Thus, a petitioner having less than 20 such employees would appear to be ineligible to bring "L" aliens. Also this restriction would unfairly penalize small international firms having a legitimate need for intracomapny transferees. In addition, there would be problems of administration of the restriction. The petitioning employer would have to establish the number of persons (U.S. citizens and aliens) comprising his managerial and executive staff, a matter which might well be controversial. In the cases of eligible petitioners the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be required to monitor petitions from each petitioner to assure that the 5 percent limit was not exceeded. The Department is unaware of any circumstances that adequately justify a need for the proviso to section 2. It is estimated that section 1 of this bill would result in the receipt of 20,000 additional applications for adjustment of status from Western Hemisphere natives. This would require 13 officer and 29 clerical work-years at a cost of $564,000. However, this increase would be offset to some extent by the elimination of adjustment for F, H, and L nonimmigrants who filed a total of approximately 13,000 applications for adjustment during fiscal 1975. It is impossible to estimate the budgetary impact of section 2. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to answer your questions. [Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.] APPENDIX CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF A-2 VISAS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, November 10, 1976. Mr. LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER, Deputy Undersecretary for Management, DEAR MR. EAagleburger: Thank you for your letter of November 8, 1976 and your kind personal note. I must say that I am disappointed that the original deadline of October 31, 1976 for the adjustment of A-2 student visa holders to the "F" or "J" status has not been met. Appreciating the difficulties the Department has encountered in getting students to submit applications to the Immigration Service for action, I agree this one time to the postponement of the deadline to November 30, 1976. I have noted that the Saudi Arabians will stop payments to their student nationals who have not adjusted by that date. Notwithstanding, I would wish that the Department reiterate to both the Embassies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that no further concessions will be made. To this end, I am requesting the Commissioner of Immigration to institute deportation proceedings as of December 1, 1976 against all student holders of A-2 visas who have failed to adjust. Since this problem has been with us for a long time, I feel that it can only be resolved by direct firm action. With kind personal regards, JOSHUA EILBERG, Chairman. Hon. JOSHUA EILBERG, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., November 8, 1976. Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I refer to Secretary Kissinger's letter to you of May 10, 1976, concerning the termination of issuance of A-2 visas to students from certain Arab countries. This letter is to inform you of measures taken by the Departments of State and Justice (INS) and by the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti Embassies to secure the cooperation of all students concerned to change from A-2 to F or J status, as appropriate, and to provide you with the results to date. During May officers of the concerned bureaus of the Department of State held meetings with representatives of the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti Embassies and Cultural Missions to explain the new procedures and to enlist the help of all in carrying out the changeover as rapidly and as smoothly as possible. The Embassies agreed to send notices to all of their students and to provide lists of names and addresses of such students for the use of INS. In addition, this Department offered to obtain from the Embassies a blanket guarantee of support covering all students sponsored by their respective governments, and to assist INS in every other possible way in implementing this project. Among other things, at the request of this Department the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs (NAFSA) circularized its membership in May 1976 to enlist the assistance of foreign student advisers in informing Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti students of the need to change their status. Both Embassies and their Cultural Missions have apparently cooperated to the best of their ability. They provided the lists and sent notification to all of their students. At the same time, INS also sent letters to all students on the (221) lists as well. Both Embassies provided blanket letters of support for all government sponsored students and the Service instructed all of its offices to process the cases without further financial evidence. When it was discovered that the passports of many of the students did not have sufficient validity for the change (length of passport validity had not been important under A-2 visas, since stay was granted for "duration of status"), both Embassies expedited extensions, and the Saudi Arabian Embassy assigned a Consular Officer to the Cultural Mission in Houston exclusively for the purpose of revalidating passports as rapidly as they were received. Unfortunately, by the time the meetings were held in May, many colleges and universities had already let out for the summer, and by the time notices could be mailed, virtually all students were in the summer holiday period. Therefore, the number of students who were reached was limited. As a result, except for the comparatively few new students who arrived during August and early September, addresses and locations for many could not be known with accuracy until well into September, when the students once again got in touch with their Cultural Missions in order to obtain their support checks. Both Missions have provided revised address lists and are continually updating such lists as information becomes available. In mid October the Immigration and Naturalization Service sent another appeal to all members of the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs (paid for by the Service) since the number applying for change of status, although gathering momentum, was still small compared with the total estimated number of cases. The Service reported that as of close of business on October 29, 2,573 applications out of a total estimated caseload of 4,850 had actually been received, and adjudicated, with 900 applications being made during the preceding week. Telephone checks made last week by this Department with foreign student advisers at major universities throughout the country (Texas, Northwestern, Arizona, Southern California, Indiana, Iowa State, Colorado, California at Berkeley) produced surprise from those polled, since all felt that the change had gone smoothly and had been, or was about to be, completed at their institutions. They cited delays, such as the necessity to have passports revalidated, but felt that their students would meet the deadline. One possible explanation for this seemingly contradictory situation is that the major universities all have large and efficient staffs of foreign student advisers, while smaller institutions are not as well equipped. For instance, one community college in California which called on the Department of State for aid and advice had seventy-five Saudi and Kuwaiti students and only a Student Services Office (no foreign student adviser) to deal with the changes. Given the fact that the nearest office of the Immigration Service was nearly 100 miles distant, the problems were substantial. I can assure you that INS and this Department have been making all possible efforts to bring this project to a successful conclusion, including enlisting the continuing efforts of the two Embassies concerned. Therefore, it is somewhat difficult to understand why more applications have not been filed to date. Because we view the situation with serious concern, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, Mr. Alfred L. Atherton, has again approached the Saudi and Kuwaiti Ambassadors to make these facts known to them and to request their total cooperation in resolving this problem. According to the Kuwaiti Ambassador, Kuwaiti nationals have been making a good effort to comply with the requirement and reports from universities around the country tend to confirm this statement. It appears that the largest number of students who have failed to apply are Saudi nationals. Accordingly and in order to impress such students with the importance of this matter, the Saudi Ambassador has agreed to instruct the Saudi Cultural Mission at Houston by telegram to withhold any further support checks from students who cannot verify that they have applied for their change of status. In light of these circumstances, this Department proposes to extend the deadline for adjusting status to November 30, 1976. Given the importance of implementing this program without further delay, the two Embassies concerned will be informed that the Department will officially notify the INS that except for good cause shown, any Saudi Arabian or Kuwaiti national who has not filed by November 30, 1976 will be declared to be out of status on December 1, 1976. We will keep you fully informed of further developments in this matter as they occur. Sincerely, LAWRENCE S. EAGLEBURGER, Deputy Under Secretary for Management. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. JOSHUA EILBERG, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to our recent discussion and that of Mr. Greene with you concerning the changing of status from A-2 to F-1 or J-1 of certain government supported Saudi and Kuwaiti students. Attached is a copy of a letter which I have sent to Secretary Kissinger on this matter. Until we receive the material requested from the Department of State we cannot assure you that the change of status program will be completed by any date certain. Mr. Greene stated to you in his meeting on June 11, 1976, that we would do everything possible to meet the commitment made on our behalf by the Department of State of completing the adjustments by October 31, 1976. I confirm Mr. Greene's statement, and we are making plans to that end. However, as our letter to State indicates not all conditions necessary to complete this project are within our control. In addition to the material requested from State, another factor in the project beyond our control is the time when the subjects file their applications for adjustment. If they are filed well in advance of October 31, 1976, this will aid us significantly. If a large number wait until late October this would make it impossible to complete the work by the target date. The extent to which the Department of State can obtain the cooperation of the countries involved will determine this aspect. At the same time our field offices have made advance commitments of manpower months ago to such work items as processing of relative visa petition and adjustment of status to permanent residence applications for deserving applicants who have already waited a long time and in whose cases further delay would work an extreme hardship. We are making determinations now as to what actions we can properly defer to accommodate this project without undue prejudice to the applicants. In accordance with your request, we will keep you advised of our progress. Respectfully, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., June 9, 1976. Hon. JOSHUA EILBERG, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of May 21, 1976, with attachment from the Secretary of State concerning termination of the practice of issuing A-2 visas to students from certain Arab countries. I note that the first paragraph on page 2 of Secretary Kissinger's letter discusses the procedure for granting these students a change of nonimmigrant status from A-2 to the appropriate For J classification. The statement is made that "Such regularization will be accomplished by October 31, 1976.” Please be advised that existing backlogs and personnel limitations will not permit the adjudication of these applications by October 31, 1975. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Department of State and it is understood that the A-2 students will be required to have their applications for change of nonimmigrant status on file by that date, except for good cause. The Service will adjudiciate these applications by the earliest possible date as workloads permit. Sincerely, L. F. CHAPMAN, Jr., Commissioner. THE SECRETARY OF STATE, Hon. JOSHUA EILBERG, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of March 24 in which you suggested that the Department of State terminate immediately the practice of issuing A-2 visas to students from certain Arab countries. I am also aware of your letter of April 7 to the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service which requests that immediate steps be taken to refuse admission to students bearing A-2 visas. I agree with you that the issuance of such visas is no longer appropriate and I am approving the actions of the Department's Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs to terminate the practice. However, there are considerations which merit allowing a brief transitional period for the parties concerned before the effective date of this termination. The cessation of the practice of issuing A-2 visas to government-supported students from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait-students who are obligated to work for their governments upon their return-will affect the procedures now followed by these two governments in preparing the documentation for their students and, as you correctly note, will affect thousands of students. A precipitate change of procedures, particularly at this stage of the school year, would create unusual hardships. Therefore, in fairness to those concerned, the practice of issuing A–2 visas to government-supported Saudi and Kuwaiti students will be terminated effective August 31, 1976. We are, of course, informing the two governments and our consular officers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait of this impending termination. Upon termination of the A-2 visa practice, a process of regularizing the issuance of visas to Saudi and Kuwaiti students under procedures now generally in force for foreign students, will come into effect. This regularization will be implemented in close consultation with the foreign governments and U.S. agencies concerned. As a part of this process forms 1-20 or forms DSP-66 will be submitted to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the purpose of effecting a change of status from A-2 to F or J classification. This process will also assure that Kuwaiti and Saudi students submit an annual report of address. The academic institution involved will also report any change in student status. Such regularization will be accomplished by October 31, 1976, with the understanding that further additional time will be given to affected individuals to regularize their status if for good cause shown they were unable to do so by October 31, 1976. We wish to achieve full compliance with this new practice as rapidly as possible, consistent with giving the affected individuals a fair opportunity to respond thereto. To this end, we are sending instructions to the field outlining the new procedures. We have also arranged briefing sessions with the Kuwaiti and Saudi Missions in the United States. Finally, we expect to have in our possession, in a matter of days, a complete, current list of all Saudi and Kuwaiti A-2 students in the United States. This list will not only include their U.S. address but also the name and address of the academic institution in which the student is enrolled. Best regards, HENRY A. KISSINGER. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. JOSHUA Eilberg, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of April 7, 1976, requesting that the Immigration and Naturalization Service take immediate steps to refuse admission to applicants who apply for admission as diplomats under the provision of section 101 (a) (15) (A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, unless those applicants are entitled to such status as specifically provided in the law. Please be assured that I fully share your concern for the effective enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, section 101 (a) (15) (A) (ii) of the Act makes the Secretary of State the sole judge of whether an alien will be |