Comment Submitted by sky wang
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: An international student working in biomedical drug development opposes the proposed rule because it introduces broad discretion and criminal history standards to the practical training authorization process. The commenter argues that minor, resolved incidents could unfairly disqualify students from completing the training necessary for their careers and for contributing to important medical research.
I am an international student, and my practical training is the reason I chose to study in the United States and the bridge between my degree and my career. Practical training has always been a straightforward process. My school certifies my eligibility, I file on time, and I receive my card. This rule injects broad discretion and a criminal history standard into that process for the first time. Many students have a minor, years-old incident on their record, a citation, a misunderstanding, a charge that was dismissed, that never affected their studies or their standing. Under this rule, that kind of long-resolved matter could cost a student the ability to complete the training their degree was built around, and could cost an American employer a worker they invested in training.
For me, this is not abstract. I work in biomedical drug development in the United States, a field I spent years training for, and my practical training is what lets me contribute to that work. The research I am part of aims to help people with cardiovascular disease, which remains the leading cause of death for Americans. Losing my work authorization over a minor, long-resolved matter unrelated to my work would not only end the career I built my education around. It would take a trained contributor away from research that stands to benefit a great many Americans. That serves no one, least of all the patients this work is meant to help.