From ABC News. This despite the fact that Amit Aharoni has already secured venture capital funding of $1.65 million and created jobs for nine Americans. The basis for the denial - that Aharoni's job doesn't require an advanced degree. The company has plans to hire hundreds of American workers in the coming couple of years, but those jobs might all end up in Canada. Thanks USCIS!
Here's another example of the disconnect between what we hear from the White House and what we see on the ground. The Administration is telling us that it welcomes applications from entrepreneurs. And here we see examiners issuing absurd decisions. Mr. Aharoni noted in the ABC interview that he feels humiliated. And that's something we hear over and over again. We see it at US Consulates abroad where consular officers make applicants feel like petty criminals. We see it with USCIS adjudications where you are presumed to be committing fraud and scamming the system. This is hardly the welcome mat we used to have in this country encouraging people to settle here.
I have a couple of questions for USCIS? Why don't you require college degrees of your adjudicators? You have examiners making determinations in complex business, science, arts and other cases where the person lacks any background at all in the subject matter. My understanding is that a high school diploma isn't even a requirement and certainly not a college degree. I'd love to be wrong on that and expect someone at USCIS will correct me if that's not the case. It's only speculation, but I would venture to suggest that the number of poor qualify denials of employment-based cases would drop significantly if the requirements to be an examiner in those cases was raised.
And why do examiners get to issue decisions anonymously? A signature means someone is holding themselves publicly accountable for their actions. USCIS examiners should be required to sign their decisions and no longer remain anonymous. I'm not aware of any other federal agency that operates this way whether it's the IRS auditing your tax returns or the SEC investigating your trading activity. I've asked this question to senior USCIS officials in the recent past and they look dumbfounded as if they can't believe that an examiner's anonymity might affect their behavior. But the adjudication system has become one in which examiners are effectively one-person star chambers. We hear about the consequences of this when an Amit Aharoni gets denied. How many others lack the fame and resources to get our attention, however?