DOS Cable Discusses CIPRIS


UNCLASSIFIED
TELEGRAM                                        February 06, 2001


To:       ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR  POSTS - ROUTINE           

Origin:   VO                                                     

From:     SECSTATE WASHDC (STATE 21167 - ROUTINE)                

TAGS:     CVIS, CMGT                                             

Captions: None                                                   

Subject:  CIPRIS PROGRAM UPDATE: ADDRESSING POST CONCERNS        

Ref:      (A)STATE 229049   (B) BEIJING 12078 (NOTAL)            
_________________________________________________________________


1. Summary: In Ref A, Department reported on recent
developments regarding INS'S CIPRIS program for tracking
students and exchange visitors in the U.S., and discussed
INS's plan for collecting a fee from F/J/M applicants
beginning in 2001. Ref B was Beijing's excellent critique
of INS's proposed fee collection process. Because many of
Beijing's concerns are shared by other posts, we are
sending this aldac to describe our ongoing efforts to
ensure that the CIPRIS fee collection process, when
implemented by INS, will have the least possible impact on
your consular operations. End summary.

2. Our previous aldac (ref A) discussed in some detail
INS'S proposed system for collecting a CIPRIS fee. The
INS is currently drafting its regulations on the CIPRIS
fee collection process and hammering out the modalities of
the payment procedures with the Department; actual
implementation of the fee requirement is still some months
away, and will go into effect when INS publishes its fee
regulations as an interim final rule in the Federal
Register.  INS is shooting for a May or June publication
date, but delays resulting from the change of
administrations may throw off this timetable. Most
details of the payment system have already been settled,
although we anticipate that as the program is fine-tuned
there may still be some minor changes to the process.

3. Beijing's cable raised several concerns about the fee
payment system, and several other posts have informally
passed on to us many of these same worries. As one of the
largest student visa issuing posts, in a country where
following the CIPRIS fee payment requirements may prove
problematic for most student and exchange visitor
applicants, Beijing is particularly well-positioned to
share its insight on INS's proposal. Among the major
issues raised by Beijing were:

-- The payment system emphasizes using the Internet to
provide information about paying the fee, and the fee can
most easily be paid by credit card over the Internet.
However, many F/J/M applicants do not have access to the
Internet, and -- in China at least -- those that have
access do not have credit cards.

-- Applicants without credit cards will have to pay by
mail with a money order or personal check. By INS's own
estimate, paying by mail will take up to several weeks for
a student to receive the I-797 payment receipt from the
Bank One lockbox. This delay will inevitably result in
some F/J/M applicants missing the start dates of their
programs. Posts will in turn have to deal with increased
numbers of 221(g) refusals and a corresponding increase in
public inquiries related to those refusals.

-- The high cost of the CIPRIS fee ($95 for most F/M and
many J applicants) and the fact that the fee will be non-
refundable, even if applicants are refused, will create a
public relations headache for posts and may produce a
backlash as host countries impose similar fees on U.S.
travelers or students.

-- INS may introduce the payment requirement during the
height of the student viSa rush. This could cripple high-
volume F/J/M posts as they struggle to inform applicants
of the new requirement and simultaneously deal with 221(g)
refusals and public inquiries.

4.  We have brought all of these potential problems to
INS's attention at various times during the development of
the fee payment system.  State and INS continue to look
for ways to overcome these problems, or at least
ameliorate their worst effects. Some of these efforts,
directed specifically at the issues listed above, include:

-- INS and Bank One/Anexys, the INS lockbox, are looking
at the feasibility of Bank One collecting the CIPRIS fee
at its overseas branches; this would make it possible for
many applicants to pay the fee in their home country
rather than having to mail it to the Bank One office in
Chicago. Bank One will also explore currency exchange
rules in various countries to determine if those rules
might be an impediment to students' paying the CIPRIS fee.

-- INS will make available an option for express mail
delivery of the fee receipt. This service will be provided
at an additional cost to F/J/M applicants, but for those
who take advantage of the service, express mail may cut
down delivery time of the fee receipts by a week or more.
-- We have suggested that INS develop a system whereby "J"
program sponsors can pay fees in advance for their
overseas participants. In reality, program sponsors and
schools -- as well as U.S.-based relatives and sponsors of
applicants -- will already be able to pay fees on behalf
of those participants under the current proposed system.
Our suggestion would simply streamline this process to
make it easier for sponsors to pay for large groups of
participants. Facilitating sponsors' advance payments for
short-term programs such as camp counselors and summer
work/study is important since, as many of you well know,
applications to these programs tend to be last-minute
affairs.

-- To help deal with public inquiries regarding the new
fee, INS is incorporating a public inquiries element into
CIPRIS. This public inquiries unit will provide general
information on the CIPRIS fee as well as assist F/J/M
applicants wishing to check on the status of their fee
payments.

-- The timing of the introduction of CIPRIS fees is a
major concern of the Visa Office. We have already stressed
to INS that introducing the fee during our busy season may
overwhelm our already-swamped posts. INS shares our
concern that the fee not have an undue impact on post
workloads, but INS's statutory requirement to get the
program off the ground may compel the Service to launch
CIPRIS fees during our summer peak season. In the event
this happens, we are exploring work-arounds to avoid a
221(g) crush. For example, in some compelling cases
posts' may be able to use "B-2 in lieu of F/J/M" visas to
allow students and exchange visitors to travel in the
absence of a fee receipt.

-- We have requested that our consular officers be given
access to Bank One/Anexys' administrative web site to look
up payment information on individual applicants. We are
investigating systems modifications which would allow Bank
One/Anexys, or possibly INS's Claims Division, to transmit
electronically fee payment information to posts overseas.
These developments would make it possible for posts to
confirm that applicants have paid the fee even if those
applicants have not yet received the paper receipt, and
would substantially shorten the fee payment processing
time.

5. As we have noted above, we take very seriously posts'
concerns about the CIPRIS program. We also recognize that
the fee payment system which we have described will have
unintended consequences which will impact on posts'
workloads. We rely on you to help us identify those
consequences and to find ways of resolving them. To that
end, we encourage you to share with us your views of the
program -- your input provides us with a valuable "reality
check" on the project. Please send your comments and
suggestions to Greg Chapman (CA/VO/F/P), the VO contact
for the CIPRIS project.
POWELL
_________________________________________________________________