Visa-sponsorship issues for international job applicants?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

There was some discussion on the job market reporting thread about Wyoming sending emails to candidates saying that they did not meet the minimum qualification for the job. A commenter said, "I got a similar response (“you don’t meet the minimum qualifications”) from a smaller US college immediately after submitting my application. I followed up and they said I got disqualified because they don’t sponsor visas (I’m not a US citizen), despite not stating this in the ad."

This could be the case for Wyoming: I got the email saying I don't meet the minimum qualifications (I do), and I must have indicated that I will need visa sponsorship in the online application.

This is a bit frustrating because it seems like job ads really do not indicate whether or not they would sponsor visas. This means that international folks are needlessly applying to and getting rejected from jobs without any indication that this might be due to visa-related issues. People also don't really talk much about the hurdle of needing visa sponsorship when on the job market.

A question for folks at smaller colleges and universities: do you sponsor visas? if not, do you automatically remove any application from someone who indicates that they need a visa? how is this handled, if at all?

And for international folks who have been able to get sponsorships: any advice for people on the job market? are you honest and upfront about your needing sponsorship? has this ever been an issue while interviewing for a job?

All good questions. Do any readers have helpful insights or experiences to share?

Comments

[A foreign national]

I was hired in the USA and needed a visa. The state college did take care of the paperwork - which includes getting a labor certificate (a document that says there was not a qualified American citizen). Because I was a Canadian citizen, I could initially come in on a T1 visa (part of NAFTA - and only available to Mexicans and Canadians). These costs about $ 200. It had to be renewed every year (and I had to exit the country each time - so the border guard COULD refuse me entry each year (they never did)). When we applied for Green Cards we met with an immigration lawyer. After about three minutes of conversation, my wife said: I know more than she does about this. And we did it without a lawyer. I forget the exact costs, but it was in the hundreds of dollars. We also had to get AIDS tests, and some vaccines. To put this in perspective, we had colleagues from other countries, including Spain, who paid about $ 5,000 to get a Green card. The best way to figure out whether a college will consider you for a job is to look at the faculty list. Are there any foreign nationals? If not, they probably do not hire foreign nationals.

[Wasting time I do not have]

Can we also turn this into a request for job ads to be up front about whether they are willing to sponsor a visa? If that's the case for the Wyoming job, it's particularly frustrating because they asked for some fairly specific things which I had to create just for that application (such as a syllabus for an advanced logic course; something that an early career person is very unlikely to just have on hand already and is also very unlikely to get used for other job applications).

[Daniel Weltman]

> do you sponsor visas?

Yes, we sponsor visas for everyone. (I'm on a visa, for instance.) My sense is that it's less about whether the university is small or large vs. whether it's relatively rich or not. (And so it goes, I think, for other resources, like salary, funds for research, lower teaching loads, etc.; it's not necessarily the size of the university but how fancy it is that determines a lot of this stuff. Dartmouth isn't huge but I suspect they sponsor visas.)

[h1baby]

Employers absolutely should be noting in their ads whether or not they sponsor visas. But if they don’t, there is a government database where you can check whether a US institution has sponsored visas in the last few decades: https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/h-1b-employer-data-hub

Moreover, you very much should disclose need for sponsorship. HR uses this information to process your hiring paperwork. And the visa process can take up to 6 months to complete. There is no point getting a job that you can’t legally start. My contract actually stated that the job was contingent on getting work authorization in time to start

[John]

Most major universities in the UK will sponsor visas. But some prominent ones, including R1s, require candidates to cover their own visa costs including the immigration health surcharge, which will total in the thousands of pounds and must be paid mostly upfront to apply for the visa. I don't think this is often made explicit by UK job ads so beware.

[being realistic, here]

I do not think it is reasonable to expect colleges to state in their ads whether they will sponsor a visa. First, jobs in the USA are, in the first instance, directed at Americans. Second, it is hard to imagine colleges in other countries doing the same for jobs advertised in their countries - telling you whether you they will support your application for a visa/residency/work permit.

[G]

@being realistic, here

> jobs in the USA are, in the first instance, directed at Americans.

We might understand this differently. But 22% of the postsecondary teachers are foreign-born (https://www.immigrationresearch.org/system/files/Teacher_Paper.pdf), and the number goes up to 38% for STEM fields (https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2022/04/22/immigrant-faculty-need-training-pedagogy-dei-opinion).

I think the data justify the practice of being transparent about whether you want to sponsor a visa.

To OP's question, I think most institutions will sponsor visas mostly because foreign faculty are essential especially for STEM fields. However, the primary reason for not sponsoring a visa is financial. The application costs money. An additional layer of complication is salary. The policy varies in different administrations. A few years ago, foreign workers must meet a salary threshold in order to get the labor certificate. For institutions pay their faculty poorly (most of us...), it requires a ton of extra paperwork to justify hiring a foreign person. Also, different countries are treated differently in the immigration system.

[here we go again]

@being realistic, here
I wonder what sense of "in the first instance" you are intending here, which may or may not sway people's intuition regarding whether what OP asked is realistic or not.

[actual realism]

@being realistic, here: academic jobs in the USA aren't actually directed at Americans--it's a global job market. (Well, one that is skewed towards the general Anglo world for sure, but it's never been the case, especially at more elite institutions, that there's any priority to or "directed at" thing for Americans). Also,plenty of institutions already do state up front in job ads that they can't or won't sponsor visas. That's in part because the default is still (though I think it is sadly shifting) that academic institutions WILL sponsor visas. I also don't see why the norms in other countries are relevant here. Places like Wyoming are actually eroding a norm that already existed, that was helpful to job candidates, to be up front about this. And why would it be hard for HR or an administration to write up two sentences of boiler plate copy for ads saying that they sadly cannot sponsor visas? It seems like a highly realistic ask! And one that again, many institutions were already abiding by!

[Michel]

being realistic: It would save time for everyone involved, since there would be fewer spurious applications.

[M]

@being realistic, here
No, that is not true.
(1) Jobs in the USA are not primarily directed to Americans. Some jobs are, but not all. For example, ivy leagues proudly claim that they hire "the best in the world."
(2) In addition, jobs in other areas usually let people know if they can or cannot hire internationally, so I don't think there are any valid reasons to hide that information in US academia.
(3) Canadian academia is at least honest: at the end of their job ads it is clearly stated that "All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority."

[anon]

As a Canadian who has previously worked in the US on a TN visa, what I've found weird is that job ads are sometimes written in a way that presuppose, or come close to presupposing, the claim that applicants would only be interested in H-1B. But of course, TN/NAFTA visas are much simpler from a "sponsorship" perspective.

[a dept chair]

I work at a small, public institution. We did a hire last year, and HR included language in our ad that we don't sponsor visas. I wasn't given a specific reason, but I'm confident that it was financial in nature. No candidates were removed from the pool based on this. Our list of finalists, it turns out, included someone who may have needed sponsorship (this was told by the candidate to someone else in the department not on the committee). A different candidate was our top choice, so I'm not sure how the other scenario would have played out.

[R]

With apologies to "being realistic" for piling on, but I also wanted to address the second part of your claim ("it is hard to imagine colleges in other countries doing the same for jobs advertised in their countries - telling you whether you they will support your application for a visa/residency/work permit"). I suppose this may technically be true (I don't know what you can or can't imagine) but as someone who has applied to dozens of jobs in Europe and Australasia, and actually held some of these jobs, the application materials almost always specify this explicitly. And where it's not specified it's because the answer is obvious (if a university in continental Europe or Australasia bothers to advertise on PhilJobs, of course they're going to sponsor your visa). My experience is exactly the opposite of what you suggested: US colleges are uniquely bad in not being clear about this.

[NS]

My department is currently conducting a search for a two year fellowship position. In working with our recruiter (we're housed in an academic medical center rather than a university) we were told that under the first Trump administration there was considerable difficulty and delay in processing visas. The expectation is that the situation will be even worse in his second administration since, somehow, the incompetence and general insanity have ramped up even further this time around.

It may be that some institutions are anticipating this and are declining to sponsor visas out of fear that the dysfunction in the federal government will prevent them from being processed. We've been trying to weigh the risks of making an offer to a candidate who needs sponsorship and then having the visa process fall through - essentially leading to a failed search. I doubt we're the only department that's worried about this.

[Moeb]

It is illegal to discriminate based on national origin. It says so on their own HR statement. The APA and the AAUP need to be made aware of this. Brazen discrimination needs to be punished.

[two cents]

I think it is definitely standard to state whether one is able to sponsor visa or not (or equivalent), contrary to what @being realistic said.

My two cents is that if there is no language in the ad indicating either way (e.g. "from the world", "internationally leading"), it might be safe to assume that visa problem could potentially emerge, and no one can guarantee it, so proceed at your discretion.

What I am trying to say is that (1) visa process is complicated and full of uncertainty, and requires lots of resources. So it can definitely becomes a problem in less ideal environment, even if the university doesn't explicitly say so. It is a risk that one should be aware. (2) But, what happened in OP's post was unfortunate and is not the norm, and should be called out for their bad. Downright rejection based on nationality without advertising so is unacceptable.

[cecil.burrow]

Moeb, discriminating basing on national origin just means that of people eligible for work one cannot discriminate based on their country of birth. It does not create an obligation to sponsor a visa.

[Moeb]

If all candidates are considered equally, without regard of national origin, then for full time academic jobs lasting one year or longer, sponsoring a visa is a requirement for finalizing the paperwork. By the way, the committee conducting the interviews is not allowed at any time to ask questions regarding immigration status of visa requirements. HR takes care of the paperwork to finalize hiring the candidate that gets selected, once again, without regard of national origin.

[no]

I'm not sure if Moeb is trolling or trying to make a moral but not legal claim or what, but all of this is incorrect if the question is a legal one (with the exception, I would imagine, of the committee not asking questions--but if a university won't sponsor visas, HR should have already removed the relevant people from the pool (hence, likely, these rude PFOs people are getting)). It is true that universities are not supposed to treat like cases unalike (so, for example, I assume that means something like: if English and Philosophy have comparable job markets with many domestic candidates, they aren't supposed to agree to sponsor visas for an English hire but not a Philosophy hire, at least not in the same year and not without a change of policy).

[Those aren’t the same thing]

In contrast to what Moab states, national origin and country of citizenship are not the same thing, and a commitment not to discriminate on the former does not entail the latter. Perhaps it should (I certainly oppose immigration restrictions) but it is not a legal requirement that institutions offer visas.

[never again]

Whenever asked, I have always indicated that I will need a Visa sponsorship. If they ask, I assume they can sponsor it. If they don't sponsor it, then they should explicitly say it, or the question should be, can you legally work here even if we don't sponsor your Visa? To the last question, since I have an OPT and since my spouse will, in all likelihood, be getting citizenship soon, I would also answer 'yes'.

I received the same message from Wyoming (and I'm not among those who commented in the original thread). I spent hours working on this application, so I hope that was not why they disqualified me. However, I also don't see any other reason why they would have done so.

I really hope other universities and colleges will not disqualify me for this reason.