Point Systems for Immigrant Selection: Options and Issues

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

Replacing or supplementing the current preference system for admitting legal permanent
residents (LPRs) with a point system is garnering considerable interest for the first time in over a
decade. Briefly, point systems such as those of Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New
Zealand assign prospective immigrants with credits if they have specified attributes, most often
based on educational attainment, skill sets used in shortage occupations, extent of work
experience, language proficiency, and desirable age range.
President George W. Bush has stated that comprehensive immigration reform is a top priority of
his second term, and his principles of reform include increased border security and enforcement
of immigration laws within the interior of the United States, as well as a major overhaul of
temporary worker visas, expansion of permanent legal immigration, and revisions to the process
of determining whether foreign workers are needed. The Bush Administration is reportedly
among those advocating to replace or supplement the current legal immigration preference system
with a point system that would assign prospective immigrants with credits if they have specified
attributes.
Proponents of point systems maintain that such merit-based approaches are clearly defined and
based on the nation’s economic needs and labor market objectives. A point system, supporters
argue, would be more acceptable to the public because the government (rather than employers or
families) would be selecting new immigrants and this selection would be based on national
economic priorities. Opponents of point systems state that the judgement of individual employers
are the best indicator of labor market needs and an immigrant’s success.
Opponents warn that the number of people who wish to immigrate to the United States would
overwhelm a point system comparable to those of Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New
Zealand. In turn, this predicted high volume of prospective immigrants, some say, would likely
lead to selection criteria so rigorous that it would be indistinguishable from what is now the first
preference category of employment-based admissions (persons of extraordinary ability in the arts,
science, education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; and certain
multi-national executives and managers) and ultimately would not result in meaningful reform.
The bipartisan compromise proposal for comprehensive immigration reform introduced in the
Senate on May 21, 2007, as S.Amdt. 1150 to S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Act of 2007, includes a point system. A modified version of that compromise legislation (S.
1639), which also featured a point system, stalled in the Senate on June 28, 2007. This report will
be updated as events warrant.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Issue Definition.........................................................................................................................1
Pro/Con Summation............................................................................................................1
Current Criteria for U.S. Permanent Residence........................................................................2
Features of Point Systems.........................................................................................................2
Factor s ................................................................................................................................. 2
Score/Scale Dimensions......................................................................................................2
Ti er s .................................................................................................................................... 3
Constellation of Elements...................................................................................................3
Theoretical Considerations........................................................................................................3
International Point Systems.............................................................................................................4
New Zealand.............................................................................................................................5
United Kingdom........................................................................................................................5
Proposed Changes...............................................................................................................6
Austra li a ...................................................................................................................... .............. 6
Canada ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Category Weighting Comparison..............................................................................................8
Prior U.S. Considerations of Point Systems..................................................................................10
Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy........................................................10
Immigration Act of 1990..........................................................................................................11
Current Proposal for Immigration Point System...........................................................................12
Admissions Levels for S. 1639’s Point System.......................................................................13
Point Distributions Proposed in S. 1639.................................................................................13
Merit-Based Points............................................................................................................14
Z Visa Point Supplement...................................................................................................14
Tier Comparison...............................................................................................................15
Current Themes.............................................................................................................................16
From Encouraging Migration to Managing Demand..............................................................16
From Personal Relationships to National Priorities................................................................16
From Augmenting to Replacing Existing Visa Categories......................................................17
Concluding Comments............................................................................................................17
Figure 1. Percentage of Points Distributed Across Major Categories for Select Countries
with Point Systems.......................................................................................................................9
Figure 2. Percentage Weighted to Each Factor in S.Amdt. 1150-Proposed Point System,
by Tier........................................................................................................................................16
Table A-1. U.S. Immigration Preference System and Numerical Limits......................................18

Table B-1. New Zealand Point Distribution..................................................................................20
Table C-1. United Kingdom Point Distribution.............................................................................22
Table D-1. Australian Point Distribution.......................................................................................24
Table E-1. Canadian Point Distribution.........................................................................................26
Table F-1. Categories and Point Distributions in S. 1639.............................................................29
Table F-2. Categories and Point Distributions in S. 1639: Supplemental Schedule for Z
Vi sas .......................................................................................................................... ................. 30
Appendix A. Current U.S. Legal Immigration Preference System................................................18
Appendix B. New Zealand Point System Requirements...............................................................19
Appendix C. United Kingdom Current Point System Requirements............................................22
Appendix D. Australian Point System Requirements....................................................................24
Appendix E. Canadian Point System Requirements.....................................................................26
Appendix F. Proposed Point System in S. 1639............................................................................29
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................30

President George W. Bush has stated that comprehensive immigration reform is a top priority of
his second term, and his principles of reform include increased border security and enforcement
of immigration laws within the interior of the United States, as well as a major overhaul of
temporary worker visas, expansion of permanent legal immigration, and revisions to the process
of determining whether foreign workers are needed. Some are advocating to replace or ¹
supplement the current legal immigration preference system with a point system that would
assign prospective immigrants with credits if they have specified attributes (e.g., educational
attainment, work experience, language proficiency).
Replacing or supplementing the current preference system for admitting legal permanent
residents (LPRs) with a point system is garnering considerable interest for the first time in over a
decade. Briefly, point systems such as those of Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New
Zealand assign prospective immigrants with credits if they have specified attributes, most often
based upon educational attainment, skill sets used in shortage occupations, extent of work
experience, language proficiency, and desirable age range.
Proponents of point systems maintain that such merit-based approaches are clearly defined and ²
based upon the nation’s economic needs and labor market objectives. A point system, supporters
argue, would be more acceptable to the public because the government (rather than employers or
families) would be selecting new immigrants and this selection would be based upon national
economic priorities. Such a system would distribute qualifying points from various “merit-based”
categories, thereby making the system analogous to the “skilled immigration” point systems of ³
other countries.
Opponents of point systems state that the judgement of individual employers are the best
indicator of labor market needs and an immigrant’s success. Some warn that the number of people
who wish to immigrate to the United States would overwhelm a point system that is comparable
to those of Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand. In turn, this predicted high volume
of prospective immigrants, some say, would likely lead to selection criteria so rigorous that it
would be indistinguishable from what is now the first preference category of employment-based
admissions (persons of extraordinary ability in the arts, science, education, business, or athletics;
outstanding professors and researchers; and certain multi-national executives and managers) and ⁴
ultimately would not result in meaningful reform.

¹^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³²²³⁵^,^U^.^{S. I}^m^mⁱ^gr^ati^oⁿ^Polⁱ^c^y^on^Pe^r^m^ane^nt^Ad^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^,^by^{Ruth Elle}ⁿ^W^a^se^m^.
²^{U.S. Ho}^use^of^Re^pre^s^eⁿ^ta^tiv^e^s^{, Com}^m^itte^e^{on the}^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^Subc^om^m^itte^e^{on Im}^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion, Citiz}^eⁿ^ship^{, Re}^f^u^g^e^e^s^,
^Bo^rd^{er Secu}^ri^ty^{, an}^d^In^tern^ati^oⁿ^a^{l L}^a^w^,^H^e^ar^{ing o}ⁿ^Aⁿ^Ex^amⁱⁿ^a^tio^{n of}^Poiⁿ^t^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^as^{a M}^e^th^od^fo^r^Se^le^c^ting
^I^m^mⁱ^gr^ants^,^Ma^y^{1, 20}⁰⁷^{; a}ⁿ^d^U^.^{S. Se}^na^te^{, C}^o^m^m^itte^e^{on H}^e^a^lth,^Educ^a^tio^{n, L}^a^bor^{, a}ⁿ^d^P^e^nsⁱ^ons^,^H^e^ar^{ing on}
^Em^ploy^m^e^nt-^B^as^e^d^Pe^r^m^aⁿ^eⁿ^{t I}^m^mⁱ^gr^atio^n:^Ex^amⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g^the^V^a^lue^of^{a Sk}^il^ls^Bas^e^d^Poiⁿ^t^Sy^s^t^e^m^{, S}^e^pte^m^be^r^{14, 2}⁰⁰⁶^.
³^Ibid^.
⁴^Ibid^.

Four major principles underlie current U.S. policy on permanent immigration: the reunification of
families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the protection of refugees, and the
diversity of admissions by country of origin. Each of these four principle constitutes its own
stream, or column, of immigrants. Thus, for example, the queue for family-based immigrants
generally functions independently of the queue for employment-based admissions. The
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) specifies a complex set of numerical limits and
preference categories that give priorities for permanent immigration reflecting these principles.
Prospective immigrants must first meet the eligibility requirements for the specific visa category,
and then form a queue based upon numerical limits set by visa category and country of origin.
These preference categories are detailed in Appendix A, Current U.S. Legal Immigration
Preference System.
Under the INA, immigrants are legal permanent residents (LPRs) who are foreign nationals living
lawfully and permanently in the United States. During FY2005, a total of 1.1 million aliens
became LPRs in the United States. Of this total, 57.8% entered on the basis of family ties. Other
major categories in FY2005 were employment-based LPRs (including spouses and children) at ⁵

22.0%, and refugees/asylees adjusting to LPR status at 12.7%.

A point system is a criteria-based immigrant selection process wherein each criterion is assigned a
certain value or range. Those qualities in an applicant which are valued more highly, or are more
sought after, are given a higher point value. In order to qualify, or “pass,” an applicant must
receive a predetermined number of points or fall within the top end of the point distribution. The
scope and complexity of point systems offer a range of possibilities. Three elements are central to
devising a point system: the factors/criteria; the scoring/scaling dimensions; and the possible use
of tiers.
As noted above, points systems are based upon a list of criteria or factors. Most often, the factors
are based upon the prospective immigrant’s educational attainment, work experience, language
proficiency, occupation, and age. Other factors that arise, albeit less frequently, link a prospective
immigrant to the destination country, such as offers of employment, close family ties, prior work
or educational experience in the destination country. These factors are typically focused on
criteria that predict economic success, but also might include factors that are geared toward
adaptability, social acculturation or assimilation.
Another element of points systems is how they are scored or scaled. For example, the factor of
education may be scaled according to the years of schooling (e.g., 2 points for each year of
schooling beyond high school) or scored according to a specific number of points given to the

⁵^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³²²³⁵^,^U^.^{S. I}^m^mⁱ^gr^ati^oⁿ^Polⁱ^c^y^on^Pe^r^m^ane^nt^Ad^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^,^by^{Ruth Elle}ⁿ^W^a^se^m^.

prospective immigrant who meets the educational requirements (e.g., 25 points for an advanced
degree).
A tiered approach to points systems organizes the factors into separate streams. For example,
there might be a tier for shortage occupations, a tier for recent graduates in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, and a tier for extended family of U.S. citizens. Within each of
these tiers there might be separate scoring mechanisms that assign points, for example, according
to age, work experience, or language proficiency.
As the discussion below reveals, points systems may be devised to draw on a constellation of
these elements. That is, within a tier, there may be factors and sub-factors given differing weights.
Or, some factors may be scaled and other factors may be scored within the same tier or overall
point system.
There are theoretical approaches that underlie the debate over any system to select immigrants,
and these theories particularly arise in the context of point systems. There are a variety of
economic, social, and public policy theories that often shape the discussion.
By adjusting the point values to favor admissions of immigrants with skill sets that are in highest
demand, the point systems rooted in classical economic theory might aim to maximize the
probability that the migrant will be a net contributor to the country’s economy—both in the short ⁶
and long term. Moreover, by keeping the immigrant labor force supply at or slightly below
market demand, a point system based upon economic theory might attempt to approximate a
labor market equilibrium without the potential for severe adjustment costs (e.g., “overheating”
housing market) or exogenous shocks to the labor market (e.g., large influx of foreign nationals).
Classical economists would note that despite such governmental efforts at pinning down labor
market demand for skill sets, the use of a government agency to determine market forces will
incur the loss of efficiency. The most efficient outcome, classical economists argue, is always
going to be achieved through the free flow of individuals in an open market (and thus by having
open borders). Yet, scholars will also note that such inefficiency may serve as incentives in the ⁷
marketplace for desirable economic change, such as technological innovation and wage growth.
The objective to maximize the likelihood of immigrant assimilation might lead to a point system
which values those social factors correlated to acculturation. Family ties and relatives residing in
the United States might be highly valued for the community and social linkages they provide to

⁶^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^Q^u^e^eⁿ^’^s^Uⁿ^iv^e^r^s^ity^P^r^of^e^s^s^o^r^of^Ec^onom^ic^s^C^h^a^r^le^{s M. B}^each^{, i}ⁿ^U.S^.^Coⁿ^g^{ress, Sen}^a^{te Co}^mm^{ittee o}ⁿ
^H^e^a^{lth, Ed}^uc^a^tion^,^L^a^bor^{, a}^nd^P^e^ns^ions^,^Em^pl^oy^m^e^nt-^B^as^e^d^Pe^r^m^ane^nt^I^m^mⁱ^gr^at^io^n:^Ex^amⁱⁿⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^e^Value^of^{a Sk}^il^ls^-^th^nd
^Bas^e^{d P}^o^int^Sy^s^t^e^m^{, 1}⁰⁹^Co^ng^.,²^Se^s^s^{., Se}^pte^m^be^r^14,²⁰^06,^S.^H^r^g^.^109-⁷⁷^{5 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.
⁷^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^P^r^inc^e^t^oⁿ^Uⁿ^iv^e^r^s^ity^P^r^of^e^s^s^o^r^of^Socⁱ^olog^y^D^oug^la^s^{S. Ma}^s^s^e^y^,^{in U}^.^{S. C}^o^ng^r^e^s^s^,^Se^na^te^C^o^m^m^itte^e
^{on H}^e^a^lth^{, Ed}^uc^a^tio^{n, L}^a^bor^,^aⁿ^d^P^e^nsⁱ^ons^,^Em^pl^oy^m^e^nt-^B^as^e^d^Pe^r^m^ane^{nt I}^m^mⁱ^gr^ati^on:^Ex^amⁱⁿⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^e^Val^u^e^of^a^th^nd
^Sk^ills-Base^d^Poiⁿ^{t Sy}^ste^m^{, 10}⁹^Cong^.,²^Se^s^s^{., Se}^pte^m^be^r^14,²⁰⁰⁶^{, S}^.^H^r^g^.¹⁰^9-⁷⁷⁵⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton^:^G^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.

the immigrant. Some factors (such as being within a certain age range, higher levels of education
and language skills) might be chosen for social assimilation as well as economic reasons. If the
societal goal is to increase the ethnic and racial diversity of the immigrant stream, then a point
system might add credits for immigrants coming from countries that are traditionally under-⁸
represented in the migrant flow.
Finally, a point system might be designed with a public policy underpinning to maximize public
support. In theory, an immigrant selection system might be more efficacious with the public if it
is one in which elected officials (rather than individual employers or families) are establishing
priorities at the national level to choose new immigrants. One strand of recent research
characterizes point systems as potentially inspiring public confidence by appearing to use
universal, data-driven, and objective selection criteria that convey to the public that the ⁹
government is being proactive in ways that put national economic interests first.

Among the countries that currently employ a merit-based point system, the four highest profile
systems are those of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Generally, such
merit based criteria are referred to by these countries as “skilled immigration.” Each of these
countries employs a point system in assessing candidates for skilled immigration. In the four
different systems, those skilled immigration applicants with the most points according to various
characteristics would immigrate ahead of applicants with lower point totals. In addition, each of
these four countries employs a preference system for family-based immigration. They also
employ quotas to determine levels of family and humanitarian immigration. These family and
humanitarian immigrants are thus placed in separate immigration queues.
Although the categories vary for each country, each of these countries generally requires that the
potential applicant demonstrate some sort of official language competence, educational
qualifications, and be within a certain age range. Although failing to meet one of these
qualifications may automatically disqualify applicants in some countries, these criteria are not
basic requirements in every country. While the United Kingdom, for example, requires a basic
knowledge of English for every applicant, skilled immigrants to Canada can technically qualify
without knowledge of either of the country’s official languages (English or French). Generally, an
applicant who receives a passing mark in any of the four countries discussed below is believed to
possess skills that are in sufficient demand to ensure ample employment opportunities (if such an
offer has not already been extended).

⁸^C^a^rⁿ^e^g^ie^Endow^m^e^{nt f}^o^r^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^a^tiona^l^P^eace,^B^a^la^ncⁱⁿ^{g I}ⁿ^te^r^e^s^t^s^:^Re^thinkⁱ^ng^U^.^S.^Se^le^c^tio^{n o}^f^Sk^il^l^e^{d I}^m^mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^ts^,
^by^D^e^m^t^rⁱ^os^G^.^P^a^pa^de^m^e^tr^{iou a}ⁿ^{d Ste}^p^he^{n Y}^a^le^-^L^oe^hr^,¹⁹^96.
⁹^Mig^r^a^tion^P^o^lⁱ^c^y^Institute^,^Se^le^c^t^ing^Ec^on^om^ic^Str^e^am^I^m^mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^ts^thr^o^ug^{h P}^o^ints^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^{, by}^De^m^e^{trios G}^.
^P^a^pa^de^m^e^tr^{iou, Ma}^y²⁰⁰⁷^.

In New Zealand, which has skilled immigration criteria that are detailed in Appendix B, an
applicant for skilled migration must accumulate 140 points (out of a possible 290 points) to
qualify for permanent admission. In order to even be assessed on these criteria, the applicant must
meet health, character, and basic English language requirements, in addition to being under the
age of 56. The New Zealand immigration service evaluates a candidate for skilled employment on
the basis of four broad criteria: (1) existing skilled employment, or an offer thereof; (2) work
experience; (3) educational qualifications; and (4) age. During adjudication, he or she can receive
a minimum of 50 points and a maximum of 95 points, including bonus points, for the skilled
employment criterion. Additionally, candidates who have at least two years of previous
employment can receive a minimum of 10 points and a maximum of 65 points, including bonus
points, depending on length and type of experience. Candidates with basic educational
qualifications may receive a minimum of 50 points, while those with higher qualifications may
receive up to a maximum of 100 points, including bonus points. Finally, all skilled employment
applicants who pass the basic requirements receive points for their age, from a minimum of five
points for the age group of 50-55, to a maximum of 30 points for 20-29 year-olds.
Although the qualifying point total for skilled immigration may appear permissive (with a
qualifying mark of less than half of the available points under New Zealand’s point structure), the
prospect is difficult without an employment offer. Many of the categories include a large number
of bonus points for immigrants attempting to settle in low growth and rural areas, or for previous
experience in New Zealand. Achieving a maximum score without bonus points in the non
employment offer categories (totaling 115 points) will not net an applicant a passing mark for
skilled immigration. Thus, the distribution of points and the level of the passing mark for New
Zealand’s skilled immigration makes an employment offer or existing New Zealand employment
a de facto requirement for skilled immigration. However, an applicant may still qualify to submit
an expression of interest for skilled immigration, and the New Zealand government may choose
to admit some of these applicants if its skilled immigration quotas are not met.

In the United Kingdom, which has skilled immigration criteria that are detailed in Appendix C,
an applicant for skilled migration must accumulate 75 points (out of a possible 125 points) to
qualify for permanent admission. In order to even be assessed on these criteria, the applicant must
meet health, character, and basic English language requirements, in addition to being able to
support himself without recourse to public funds. Current British policy assesses high skilled
migrants utilizing a point system known as the “Highly Skilled Migrant Program” (HSMP). The
HSMP is designed to be a flexible system for attracting well qualified individuals to the British

¹⁰^Inf^o^rm^a^{tion in t}^h^{is se}^c^tio^{n is c}^o^m^p^ile^{d f}^r^o^m^the^Ne^w^Ze^a^l^a^{nd Im}^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion Se}^rv^ic^e^,^O^p^e^r^atio^ns^M^anu^al:^Par^t^3,
^Re^sⁱ^de^nc^e^{, A}^p^{ril 10}^{, 2}⁰⁰⁷^,^pp^{. 8}⁷^-^1,8⁷^-2^{, a}^t^h^ttp:^//www^.i^m^m^ig^r^a^tion.g^o^v^t^.nz^/^mⁱ^g^r^aⁿ^t/g^eⁿ^e^r^a^l^/^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^linf^o^rm^a^tion/
^ope^r^a^tio^ns^m^a^nua^{l/, v}ⁱ^s^ite^{d Ma}^y^{10, 2}⁰⁰⁷^.
¹¹^Inf^o^rm^a^{tion in t}^h^{is se}^c^tio^{n is c}^o^m^p^ile^{d f}^r^o^m^the^T^e^sti^m^on^y^of^For^e^ig^{n L}^a^w^Spe^cⁱ^a^lis^{t a}^t^L^a^w^Lⁱ^br^ar^y^o^f^C^ong^r^e^s^s
^Cl^{are F}^eⁱ^k^ert^,ⁱⁿ^U.^S^.^Con^g^ress,^Ho^u^s^{e Co}^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^t^h^{e J}^u^dⁱ^ci^ar^y^,^S^u^b^c^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^Immⁱ^gratⁱ^oⁿ^,^Ci^tⁱ^zen^shⁱ^p^,
^Ref^u^g^ees,^Bo^rd^{er S}^ecu^ri^t^y^,^an^d^Int^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^L^a^w^,^H^e^ar^ing^{on A}ⁿ^E^x^am^inat^io^{n of}^Po^int^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^as^a^M^e^{thod f}^o^r^th^st
^Se^le^c^{ting I}^m^mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^ts^{, he}^a^rⁱⁿ^g^s^{, 1}¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^s^e^s^s^{., Ma}^y^{1, 2}⁰⁰⁷⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^aⁿ^d^Uⁿ^ite^{d K}ⁱ^ng^dom
^H^o^m^e^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^{A Poi}ⁿ^ts^-^B^as^e^d^Sy^s^t^e^m^:^M^a^kⁱ^{ng M}ⁱ^gr^atio^{n W}^o^r^k^f^o^r^Br^itain^{, C}^m⁶⁷⁴^1,^Ma^r^c^{h 2}⁰⁰⁶^{, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.hom^e^o^f^f^ic^e^.^g^o^v^.^uk^/^d^o^c^um^eⁿ^ts^/^c^om^m^a^nd-^po^ints^-^b^a^s^e^d^-^mⁱ^g^r^a^tion?^vⁱ^ew⁼^B^ina^r^y^,^vⁱ^s^ite^{d Ma}^y^{10, 20}^07.

labor market.¹² Under the HSMP, an applicant can receive between 30-50 points for educational
qualifications, between 5-45 points for past earnings, between 0-20 points for age, and five points ¹³
for any previous work or educational experience in the United Kingdom. A passing mark under
the British system is 75 points. Additionally, the United Kingdom has a basic English language
qualifying requirement for the HSMP, wherein the individual must receive a certificate of level
six or above on the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) examination.
A distinction with the British skilled immigration system is that it contains a special Master of
Business Administration (MBA) provision. Graduates from one of the 50 eligible MBA programs
from around the world who graduated since December 2004 are automatically granted the 75
points necessary to qualify. Yet, these candidates must still meet any other basic requirements of ¹⁴
the visa, such as English language skills. This MBA provision was put into effect in 2005, and
the website listing the eligible MBA programs the British Treasury maintains is included in
Appendix C.
The United Kingdom’s immigration system additionally distinguishes itself from other points
systems in that it is scheduled to become an entirely tiered point system. Under the planned
scheme, there will be five new tiers to replace all existing worker and student visa categories and
replace them with a point system. These five tiers would include (1) high skilled workers, (2)
medium skilled workers, (3) low skilled workers, (4) students, and (5) temporary workers and ¹⁵
youth mobility. Family reunification and humanitarian immigration would not be affected by the ¹⁶
point system. The new point system is set to take effect in April 2008.

The Australian skilled immigration program, which uses criteria that are outlined in greater detail
in Appendix D, does not have a universal set of points to serve as a qualifying mark. Instead, the
passing mark varies between 110-120 points, depending upon the type of skilled immigration the
individual is attempting to qualify for. Additionally, Australian authorities maintain a reserve pool
of applicants who score between 70-120 points. If the immigration quotas are not filled by

¹²^T^e^stⁱ^m^oⁿ^y^o^f^F^o^rei^gⁿ^L^a^w^S^p^eci^alⁱ^s^t^at^L^a^w^Lⁱ^b^r^ar^y^o^f^Coⁿ^g^{ress Cl}^{are F}^eⁱ^k^ert^,ⁱⁿ^U.^S^.^Con^g^ress,^Ho^u^s^{e Co}^mmⁱ^t^t^ee
^oⁿ^t^h^{e Jud}ⁱ^ci^ary^,^S^u^b^c^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^Immⁱ^gr^atⁱ^oⁿ^,^Ci^tⁱ^zen^shⁱ^p^,^Ref^u^gees,^Bo^rd^{er S}^ecu^ri^t^y^,^an^d^In^t^e^rⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^L^a^w^,^th^st
^H^e^ar^ing^on^An^Ex^amⁱⁿ^ati^on^{of P}^o^int^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^as^a^M^e^tho^d^for^Se^le^c^{ting I}^m^mⁱ^gr^an^ts^{, he}^a^r^ing^s^,¹¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^sess.^,
^Ma^y^{1, 200}^{7 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.
¹³^Uⁿ^ite^{d K}ⁱ^ng^dom^B^o^r^d^e^r^aⁿ^{d I}^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion A}^g^eⁿ^cy^,^Information^a^bou^{t t}^h^e^Hig^h^ly^Sk^ille^{d M}ⁱ^graⁿ^{t P}^r^ogramme^{, Ma}^rc^h
²⁰⁰^6.
¹⁴^T^e^stⁱ^m^oⁿ^y^o^f^F^o^rei^gⁿ^L^a^w^S^p^eci^alⁱ^s^t^at^L^a^w^Lⁱ^b^r^ar^y^o^f^Coⁿ^g^{ress Cl}^{are F}^eⁱ^k^ert^,ⁱⁿ^U.^S^.^Con^g^ress,^Ho^u^s^{e Co}^mmⁱ^t^t^ee
^oⁿ^t^h^{e Jud}ⁱ^ci^ary^,^S^u^b^c^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^Immⁱ^gr^atⁱ^oⁿ^,^Ci^tⁱ^zen^shⁱ^p^,^Ref^u^gees,^Bo^rd^{er S}^ecu^ri^t^y^,^an^d^In^t^e^rⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^L^a^w^,^th^st
^H^e^ar^ing^on^An^Ex^amⁱⁿ^ati^on^{of P}^o^int^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^as^a^M^e^tho^d^for^Se^le^c^{ting I}^m^mⁱ^gr^an^ts^{, he}^a^r^ing^s^,¹¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^sess.^,
^Ma^y^{1, 200}^{7 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.
¹⁵^Uⁿ^ite^{d K}ⁱ^ng^dom^H^o^m^e^Of^fⁱ^c^e^,^A^Poiⁿ^ts^-^B^as^e^d^Sy^s^t^e^m^:^M^a^kⁱ^ng^Mⁱ^gr^ati^{on W}^o^r^k^f^o^r^Br^it^ain^{, C}^m⁶⁷⁴^{1, Ma}^r^c^h²⁰⁰⁶^,
^a^t^http^://w^ww^.ho^m^e^o^ffⁱ^c^e^.^g^o^v^.^uk^/^doc^um^eⁿ^ts/c^om^m^a^nd-po^ints^-^b^a^s^e^d^-m^ig^ra^tion?^vⁱ^e^w⁼^B^ina^r^y^,^vⁱ^site^{d Ma}^y^{10, 20}⁰⁷^.
¹⁶^Ibid^.
¹⁷^Inf^o^rm^a^{tion in t}^h^{is se}^c^tio^{n is c}^o^m^p^ile^{d f}^r^o^m^the^T^e^sti^m^on^y^of^For^e^ig^{n L}^a^w^Spe^cⁱ^a^lis^{t a}^t^L^a^w^Lⁱ^br^ar^y^o^f^C^ong^r^e^s^s
^Lⁱ^s^a^W^h^ite^{, in U}^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^o^us^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on the}^J^u^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^Subc^om^m^itte^e^{on I}^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion, C}^itiz^eⁿ^s^h^ip^,
^Ref^u^g^ees,^Bo^rd^{er S}^ecu^ri^t^y^,^an^d^Int^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^L^a^w^,^H^e^ar^ing^{on A}ⁿ^E^x^am^inat^io^{n of}^Po^int^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^as^a^M^e^{thod f}^o^r^th^st
^Se^le^c^{ting I}^m^mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^ts^{, he}^a^rⁱⁿ^g^s^{, 1}¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^s^e^s^s^{., Ma}^y^{1, 2}⁰⁰⁷⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.

passing applicants, Australian authorities may choose to fill the quota with applicants from the ¹⁸
reserve pool. In order to even be assessed on these criteria, the applicant must meet health,
character, age and basic English language requirements, in addition to education and work
requirements.
Australia has the most diverse set of categories of the point systems discussed in this report.
Australian authorities maintain a skilled occupations list (SOL) that assigns a certain number of
points (between 40-60 points) to each occupation considered as skilled. Every applicant for
skilled immigration must have a nominated occupation that appears on the SOL and have the
necessary work experience in this occupation. A candidate who has work experience in skilled
employment may receive between 5-10 points depending on type of experience. If the nominated
occupation is on the government’s Migration Occupations in Demand List (MODL), the
individual may receive between 15-20 points. Moreover, an applicant must be under the age of 45
to qualify, and will receive between 15-30 points in the age category, with the points awarded
decreasing as age increases.
In addition to such work and skill-related criteria, there are also a number of points that are
distributed specifically on the basis of involvement in Australia and ability to adapt. One of these
criteria is for regional study or residence, wherein an applicant may receive five points for having
lived in a designated region or low population growth metropolitan area. An additional five points
may be provided for either (1) providing a minimum $100,000 (AUS) capital investment in
Australia, (2) Australian work experience of six months or more within the previous four years, or
(3) fluency in one of Australia’s community languages, other than English. Moreover, if an
applicant has received educational training in Australia, the applicant may receive between 5-15
points, depending upon the type of education. An applicant may also receive five points if his or
her spouse receives qualifying marks in a sufficient number of categories.
The final category for which an applicant may receive points is for competency in the English
language. Although basic skills in the English language is a fundamental requirement for
receiving a skilled immigrant visa, greater levels of competency will receive a higher number of
points. Applicants who receive a score of at least five on all components of the International
English Language Testing System (IELTS) will receive 15 points, while native speakers and those ¹⁹
scoring six and higher on all component of the IELTS receive 20 points.

In Canada, which has skilled immigration criteria that are detailed in Appendix E, an applicant
for skilled migration must accumulate 67 points (out of a possible 100 points) to qualify for

¹⁸^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^For^e^ig^{n L}^a^w^Spe^cⁱ^a^lis^{t a}^t^L^a^w^Lⁱ^br^a^r^y^o^f^C^ong^r^e^s^s^Lⁱ^s^a^W^h^ite^{, in U}^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^o^us^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e
^oⁿ^t^h^{e Jud}ⁱ^ci^ary^,^S^u^b^c^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^Immⁱ^gr^atⁱ^oⁿ^,^Ci^tⁱ^zen^shⁱ^p^,^Ref^u^gees,^Bo^rd^{er S}^ecu^ri^t^y^,^an^d^In^t^e^rⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^L^a^w^,^th^st
^H^e^ar^ing^on^An^Ex^amⁱⁿ^ati^on^{of P}^o^int^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^as^a^M^e^tho^d^for^Se^le^c^{ting I}^m^mⁱ^gr^an^ts^{, he}^a^r^ing^s^,¹¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^sess.^,
^Ma^y^{1, 200}^{7 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.
¹⁹^Ibid^.
²⁰^Inf^o^rm^a^{tion in t}^h^{is se}^c^tio^{n is c}^o^m^p^ile^{d f}^r^o^m^the^T^e^sti^m^on^y^of^Senior^For^e^ig^{n L}^a^w^Spe^cⁱ^a^lis^{t a}^t^L^a^w^Lⁱ^br^a^r^y^of
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^Ste^pheⁿ^{F. C}^l^a^r^k^e^{, in U}^.^{S. C}^o^ng^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^oⁿ^the^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^,^Subc^om^m^itte^e^{on I}^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^tion,
^Ci^tⁱ^zen^shⁱ^p^,^Ref^u^gees,^Bo^rd^{er S}^ecu^ri^t^y^,^an^d^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^L^a^w^,^H^e^ar^ing^oⁿ^Aⁿ^Ex^amⁱ^nat^io^{n of}^Po^int^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^as^a^th^st
^M^e^{thod f}^o^r^Se^le^c^tin^{g I}^m^mⁱ^gr^an^ts^{, h}^earⁱⁿ^gs,¹¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^s^e^s^s^.,^Ma^y^{1, 200}^{7 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^a^nd
^Citiz^eⁿ^ship^aⁿ^d^Im^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion Ca}ⁿ^a^da^{, Ov}^e^r^se^a^s^P^r^oc^e^ssing^Ma^nua^l^:^Fe^de^ra^{l Sk}^ille^{d W}^o^rk^e^r^{s, n}^o^{. O}^P^{6, J}^u^ly^{17, 2}⁰⁰⁶^,
^{pp. 11}^-2^8,^a^t^http^://w^ww^.^c^ic^.g^c^.^c^a^/^m^a^nua^ls-g^uide^s/eⁿ^g^lish/op/^op⁰⁶^e^.^pdf^{, v}ⁱ^site^{d Ma}^y^{22, 2}⁰⁰⁷^.

permanent admission. In order to even be assessed on these criteria, the applicant must meet
health and character requirements, as well as demonstrate that he will be able to support himself
without recourse to public funds. Current Canadian skilled immigration policy depends on a set
of six selection criteria—education, language, experience, age, arranged employment, and
adaptability—for determining admission eligibility for skilled immigrants. The categories of
education, language, and experience in an approved occupation are seen by Canadian authorities
as the key elements to integrating into Canadian society and becoming a productive member of its
economy. Therefore these three categories account for up to 70 points cumulative maximum—²¹
three points above the passing mark. Having an actual employment offer accounts for an ²²
additional ten points. Age and adaptability criteria can each net an applicant up to an additional
ten points, respectively.
In terms of competence in the official languages, Canada is the only country considered in this
section that does not require a certain competence level. Applicants that are fluent in both official
languages may receive up to 24 points for their language skills, but even those without any
language qualifications are still eligible to qualify. However, because of the way in which the
points are distributed, an individual with no competence in either official language would have to
have a confirmed permanent job offer in order to qualify. Additionally, this individual would have
to receive some adaptability points to receive a passing mark. Thus, while a de jure prerequisite
for official language skills does not exist, achieving a passing point score without these skills ²³
would be difficult for most applicants.
For those potential migrants who wish to settle in Quebec, there are special provisions that
require the potential migrant to apply directly to the government of Quebec. Under terms of the
Canada-Quebec Accord on Immigration, Quebec is able to establish its own immigration ²⁴
requirements for admission into the province. Currently, these requirements are not the same as
those of the Canadian authorities. Immigrants who wish to go to Quebec as a skilled worker must
first apply to the Quebec government to receive a Certificat de sélection du Québec (Quebec
selection certificate). Once this has been completed, the applicant must submit a separate
application for permanent residence to the Canadian government for consideration under the
Canadian requirements. Once an applicant has cleared each of these stages, he or she will be ²⁵
admitted as a skilled worker to Quebec.
As demonstrated in Figure 1 below, the points for qualifying for skilled employment immigration
vary across the four different countries. For example, in Australia having an employment offer

²¹^Citiz^eⁿ^shi^p^aⁿ^{d Im}^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion Ca}^na^da^{, Ov}^e^r^se^a^s^P^r^oc^e^ssing^Ma^nua^l^:^Fe^de^ra^{l Sk}^ille^{d W}^o^rk^e^r^{s, n}^o^{. O}^P^{6, J}^u^ly^17,
²⁰⁰^6,^pp^{. 1}¹^-2^{8, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.cⁱ^c^.g^c^.^c^a^/^m^a^nua^ls-g^uide^s/eⁿ^g^lish/^op/^op0^6e^.p^df^{, v}ⁱ^site^{d Ma}^y^{22, 2}⁰⁰⁷^.
²²^I^f^aⁿ^a^pplic^aⁿ^t^doe^s^not^ha^v^e^aⁿ^a^c^t^ua^{l e}^m^plo^y^m^e^{nt of}^f^e^r^,^he^m^u^s^t^de^m^ons^tr^a^t^e^tha^t^he^ha^s^s^u^f^fⁱ^cⁱ^eⁿ^{t f}^unds^oⁿ^ha^nd^to
^qua^lif^y^.^T^h^e^s^e^f^{und le}^v^e^ls^v^a^r^y^depe^ndi^ng^oⁿ^h^ous^e^h^ol^{d s}ⁱ^z^e^a^{nd a}^r^e^outli^ne^dⁱⁿ^A^ppeⁿ^dⁱ^x^E^.
²³^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^Se^nior^F^o^r^e^ig^{n L}^a^w^Spe^cⁱ^a^lis^{t a}^t^L^a^w^Lⁱ^br^a^r^y^of^C^o^ng^r^e^s^s^Ste^phe^{n F}^.^C^l^a^r^k^e^{, in U}^.^S.^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e
^Com^m^itte^e^{on the}^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^Subc^om^m^itte^e^{on Im}^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion, C}^itiz^eⁿ^ship^{, Re}^f^u^g^e^e^s^{, Borde}^r^Se^c^u^rity^{, a}^{nd I}ⁿ^te^rna^tⁱ^ona^l^th^st
^La^w,^H^e^ar^{ing on}^An^Ex^amⁱ^nati^oⁿ^{of P}^oⁱⁿ^{t Sy}^s^t^e^m^s^as^{a M}^e^tho^d^f^o^r^Se^le^c^ting^I^m^mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^ts^{, he}^a^r^ing^s^{, 110}^Co^ng^.,¹
^s^e^s^s^{., May}^{1, 2}⁰⁰⁷⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton^:^G^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.
²⁴^Citiz^eⁿ^shi^p^aⁿ^{d Im}^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion Ca}^na^da^,”^Im^mⁱ^g^r^a^ting^{to Que}^b^e^c^a^s^a^Sk^ille^{d W}^o^rk^e^r^,”^Oc^tobe^{r 2}⁶^,²⁰^{06, a}^t
^http:^//www^.c^ic^.g^c^.^c^a^/^e^ng^lish/^sk^ille^d/que^be^c^/inde^x^.^htm^l^{, v}ⁱ^site^{d Ma}^y^{22, 20}^07.
²⁵^Ibid^.

(and the bonus points associated with it) represents 53.3% of the points available, as compared to
32.8% in New Zealand and 10.0% in Canada. Canada places a greater emphasis on the work
experience category, which comprises 21.0% of the points available, while in Australia it
represents 6.7% of the available points and 22.4% of New Zealand’s skilled immigration points.
The United Kingdom does not grant points for employment offers or work experience among its
first tier applicants.
As Figure 1 below demonstrates, there are six major categories which are used by most of the
countries discussed in this section that employ a point system for skilled immigration:
employment offer, work experience, education, age, language proficiency, and other criteria. All
four countries do grant points for the age, education, and work experience categories, while the
United Kingdom is the only country that does not give points directly for previous work
experience. Instead, it grants points for previous earnings (which comprises the entire “other”
category for that country). Canada and Australia both give points for language competency, which
in Australia is in addition to the basic language requirement for skilled immigration.
Figure 1. Percentage of Points Distributed Across Major Categories for Select
Countries with Point Systems
⁶⁰
^s
ⁿ^t
⁵⁰^oⁱ
^{e P}
^bl
⁴⁰^l^a
^vai
^A
³⁰^t^a^l
^f^To
²⁰^g^e^o
^a
¹⁰^r^c^ent
^P^e
⁰
^N^e^w^Z^eal^an^d^*^Uⁿⁱ^t^{ed K}ⁱⁿ^gdom^*^A^u^s^t^r^alⁱ^a^*^C^an^a^d^a
^C^ountrⁱ^e^s
^E^m^pl^oy^m^eⁿ^t^O^f^f^e^r^Wor^k^E^x^perⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^Ed^u^c^atⁱ^oⁿ
^Ag^e^L^aⁿ^g^u^{age Pr}^ofⁱ^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^y^Oth^e^r
^Source:^{CRS prese}^{ntation of selected point system}^sched^{ules pre}^{sented in}^A^{ppendix B-Append}^{ix E}^.
^Note:^{*Denotes that the count}^r^y^{has a}^{basic re}^quireme^{nt for}^Eng^{lish language skills to be admitted as a skilled}
^immigrant.
When looking at the patterns across Figure 1, it is evident that the point distribution in each of
the selected countries is different and therefore reflects different preferences for applicant
attributes. Australia, for example, has 53% of its points tied to employment offers, and 20% of the
points distributed for age. The remaining four categories receive 6.7% of the points each.
Australia’s relatively large point range between categories stands in contrast to that of Canada,
which has the most even distribution of points across categories. The Canadian skilled
immigration system grants 25% of available points to the education category, 24% to language

proficiency, and 21% to work experience. The remaining 3 categories are each granted 10% of the
available points.
New Zealand and the United Kingdom each have point distributions with weighting schemes that
fall between those of Australia and Canada. For New Zealand’s system, 34.5% of the points
distributed go towards the education criteria, while 32.8% goes towards employment offers. Work
experience accounts for an additional 22.4% of the points total, while age has the lowest share
with 10.3%. In the United Kingdom, 41.7% of the points total is allocated for the education
category, while 16.7% is distributed for age. An additional 37% is allocated for past earnings
(classified in the chart under the category heading of “other”). Lastly, the current British point
system allocates 4.2% of its points for having a United Kingdom qualification or work
experience—listed in Figure 1 under the category heading of “work experience.”
Although the distribution of points across categories is important for the filtering of applicants,
the placement of the passing mark will also affect the ability of these categories to determine
immigrant eligibility. For example, skilled immigration to Australia requires that an applicant
accumulate between 73.3%-80% of the available points. Such a high passing mark ensures that
applicants must receive high qualifying marks in most categories. New Zealand requires that an
individual accumulates 48.2% of all available points. Yet, because the country offers a large
number of bonus points for employment in rural and targeted areas, achieving a passing mark
becomes more difficult for individuals who wish to settle outside these areas. The Canadian point
system requires an applicant to accumulate 67% of available points, thereby ensuring that an
individual must score points in at least three categories. For the United Kingdom, achieving a
passing mark requires receiving at least 62.5% of all available points.

The United States has weighed the option of a point system for selecting immigrants in the past,
but thus far has not elected to enact one. The discussion below provides the highlights of the most
recent periods when points systems were elements of major efforts to reform legal immigration. It
specifically focuses on the policy debates of the 1980s that culminated in the Immigration Act of

1990.

During the 1980s, point systems were one of the focal points during the debate over the proposals
to reform legal immigration to the United States. The Select Commission on Immigration and
Refugee Policy (SCIRP), which Congress established in 1978, did not endorse a point system as
part of its comprehensive package of immigration reform recommendations in 1981. The SCIRP
offered this explanation for its position:
^D^e^s^pⁱ^t^e^con^sⁱ^d^erabl^e^s^u^pport^f^o^{r a}^poiⁿ^t^sy^s^t^e^m^{, i}^t^beca^m^e^cl^e^a^{r t}^h^atⁱ^t^w^oul^{d be di}^f^fⁱ^cu^l^t^f^o^r
^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^s^ion^e^r^s^{, n}^o^{t to}^m^eⁿ^tⁱ^oⁿ^C^ong^res^s^{, to decide on}^cri^t^{eria an}^{d th}^e^s^p^eci^fⁱ^{c v}^a^lu^{e o}^f
^poin^t^s^{to be a}^w^{arded f}^o^{r each. Fun}^d^a^m^eⁿ^tal^v^a^l^u^{e qu}^es^tⁱ^ons^{are at is}^s^u^{e. For ex}^a^m^{ple, i}^f
^p^oⁱⁿ^t^{s ar}^{e g}ⁱ^v^eⁿ^f^o^r^En^g^lⁱ^s^h^-^l^aⁿ^g^u^a^g^e^ab^ilit^y^,^cer^taiⁿ^co^uⁿ^t^r^ies^w^o^u^l^d^clear^l^y^b^e^f^a^v^o^r^e^d^.
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^of^{a poi}^nt^sys^t^e^m^co^u^l^{d al}^s^o^{be di}^ffⁱ^c^u^l^t^.^F^o^{r ex}^a^m^pl^{e, i}^f^ed^u^catⁱ^oⁿ^a^l
^a^c^hⁱ^e^ve^me^ntⁱ^s^gi^veⁿ^p^oⁱ^nt^s,^ho^w^d^o^e^{s o}ⁿ^e^c^o^m^p^a^r^e^a^m^o^ng^so^cⁱ^e^tⁱ^e^s^va^st^l^y^dⁱ^ffe^r^e^nt
^edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^sy^s^t^e^m^s^.^F^o^{r t}^h^es^e^an^{d ot}^h^e^{r reas}^ons^on^l^y^t^w^o^C^o^mmⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^ers^[out^of^{a t}^o^t^a^l^o^f

^{16 C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^e^rs^]^v^o^t^e^{d f}^o^{r a poi}ⁿ^t^sy^s^t^e^m^a^s^a^s^e^l^ectⁱ^on^m^e^c^h^anⁱ^s^m^f^o^{r i}ⁿ^depen^d^ent²⁶
ⁱ^mmi^gr^aⁿ^t^s^.
Interest in devising a point system for selection of immigrants continued nonetheless, and options
appeared in a variety of the immigration reform bills in the 1980s.
Prior to the current debate, the most extensive debate on a U.S. point system occurred as
Congress considered the legislation that ultimately became the Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L.
101-649). During the late 1980s, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) proposed that
100,000 visas would be available for aliens according to a 150-point system. Aliens with the most
points according to various characteristics would immigrate ahead of aliens with lower point ²⁷
totals. These proposed characteristics included points for arranged employment in a desired
occupation, knowledge of English, age, education and experience or training in an occupation that
was in demand. One version of the INS recommendation added a category that would have given
points to citizens of an “underrepresented” country.
The legislation that would become Immigration Act of 1990 was S. 358, and many consider it the
most recent comprehensive overhaul of legal immigration. As introduced, S. 358 would have
allocated 55,000 visas according to a point system based on age, education, English language
ability, occupational demand, occupational training and work experience. During the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary consideration of S. 358, the point system was a major issue.
According to a report of that mark-up session, the selection criteria debate was especially
noteworthy.
^T^h^e^m^o^s^t^s^pⁱ^rⁱ^t^e^{d port}ⁱ^oⁿ^{of t}^h^e^m^a^r^k^-u^{p con}^cerⁿ^e^{d a}ⁿ^a^m^e^ndm^eⁿ^t^b^y^S^eⁿ^.^Sⁱ^m^{on t}^o^del^e^t^e
^fr^o^m^t^h^e^p^oⁱ^nt^s^y^s^t^e^m^p^oⁱⁿ^t^{s fo}^r^kno^w^l^e^d^ge^o^f^t^h^e^Eⁿ^g^lⁱ^s^{h l}^aⁿ^gua^ge^.^A^f^t^e^r^ne^a^r^l^y^aⁿ^ho^ur^o^f
^d^e^b^a^{te, in}^w^h^ic^h^se^v^e^r^a^{l Sen}^a^t^o^r^s^to^ld^sto^r^{ies ab}^o^u^{t p}^e^r^s^oⁿ^{al r}^e^la^tⁱ^v^es^w^h^o^h^a^d^a^r^rⁱ^v^e^dⁱⁿ^t^h^is²⁸
^couⁿ^t^r^yⁿ^o^{t s}^p^eaking^Eng^lⁱ^s^h^,^th^{e a}^m^eⁿ^d^m^en^{t pas}^s^{ed b}^y^{a 12-}^{2 v}^o^te....
As passed by the Senate in 1989, S. 358 would have allocated 54,000 visas annually according to
a point system. A total of 90 points would have been credited as follows:
• age—10 points for age 21-35 and 5 points for age 36-45
• education—10 points for high school, an additional 10 points for a bachelor’s
degree, and further 5 points for a graduate degree;
• occupational demand—20 points;

²⁶^Se^le^c^t^C^o^m^m^is^sⁱ^{on on I}^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^tⁱ^{on a}ⁿ^{d R}^e^f^u^g^e^e^P^o^lic^y^,^U^.^{S. I}^m^mⁱ^gr^ati^on^Polic^y^an^{d the}^N^a^ti^on^{al I}ⁿ^te^r^e^s^t^,^S^t^a^ff
^R^e^por^{t, 19}⁸¹^,^p^p^{. 40}^4-⁴⁰⁵^.
²⁷^T^h^{e INS}^p^r^op^o^s^al^w^o^u^l^d^al^so^h^a^{ve el}ⁱ^mⁱⁿ^at^ed^t^h^{e f}^a^mⁱ^l^y^-b^ased^p^r^eferen^ce^f^o^{r b}^r^o^t^h^e^{rs o}^r^si^st^ers^o^f^U.^S^.^ci^tⁱ^zen^{s (at}
^tha^t^tim^e^—^fⁱ^f^t^{h pr}^e^f^e^r^eⁿ^c^e⁾^{. T}^h^e^r^e^pla^c^e^m^e^{nt poin}^t^s^y^s^t^em^w^{ould ha}^v^e^c^r^e^d^ite^{d 20}^p^o^ints^f^o^r^br^ot^he^r^s^or^sⁱ^s^t^e^r^s^of^U^.^S.
^ci^tⁱ^zen^s.^T^o^{ease t}^h^{e i}^m^p^act^o^f^t^h^e^fⁱ^f^t^h^p^r^ef^eren^{ce cat}^e^g^o^r^y^elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^o^n,^t^h^{e f}ⁱ^rst^t^h^{ree years a}^f^t^e^{r en}^a^c^t^m^en^t^t^h^{e INS}
^w^{ould ha}^v^e^g^r^aⁿ^te^{d a}ⁿ^a^d^diti^ona^l³⁰^poi^{nts t}^o^pe^ndi^ng^be^ne^fⁱ^cⁱ^a^r^ie^{s of}^fⁱ^f^t^{h pre}^f^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^vⁱ^sa^pe^titions.^T^h^{is “}^dou^ble^-^hit”
^of⁵⁰^poi^nts^aⁱ^m^e^{d to e}ⁿ^s^u^r^e^t^h^a^t^br^ot^he^r^s^or^sⁱ^s^t^e^r^s^of^U^.^S.^c^itiz^eⁿ^s^w^{ould ha}^v^e^d^o^mⁱ^na^te^{d the}ⁱ^nde^p^e^nde^{nt c}^a^t^e^g^or^y
^t^h^{e f}ⁱ^rst^t^h^{ree y}^e^ars.
²⁸^In^terp^{reter Relea}^s^es^{, v}^o^l.^66,ⁿ^o^.^23,^“^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^Co^m^m^itte^e^A^pprov^e^s^Com^p^romⁱ^s^e^Le^g^a^{l I}^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion Bill,”}
^J^une¹⁹^,¹⁹^89.

• occupational training or work experience—20 points; and
• pre-arranged employment—15 points.
Twenty percent of the visas in the “selected immigrant” category would have gone to those who
scored the highest total points; the other 80% would have been distributed randomly to qualifying
aliens who had at least 60 points. Labor market tests (such as requirements to recruit U.S.
workers or offer prevailing wages) would not have been mandated for aliens entering through this
point system under this bill. The House-passed version of S. 358 differed from the Senate bill,
and the conferees on S. 358 ultimately opted not to include the point system in the Immigration
Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649).
Instead, the Immigration Act of 1990 established the current 5 tiered employment-based
preference system and labeled the following as the first preference “priority workers”:
• persons of extraordinary ability in the arts, science, education, business, or
athletics;
• outstanding professors and researchers; and
• certain multi-national executives and managers.
LPRs who meet these criteria are permitted entry without the labor market tests required of most
other employment-based LPRs, and the law allocates up to 28.6% of the 140,000 employment-
based LPRs for these priority workers. The 1990 Act also amended the INA to enable certain
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or persons of exceptional abilities in the
sciences, art, or business to enter without labor market tests if it is deemed to be in the national ²⁹
interest. It allocates up to 28.6% of the 140,000 LPR visas for the second preference category.
In 1995, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended “that immigrants be chosen
on the basis of the skills they contribute to the economy,” but it did not endorse a point system as ³⁰
the basis for this selection. The House and Senate immigration reform bills that received
legislative action in the mid-1990s likewise did not include provisions for a point system.

Senate action on comprehensive immigration reform legislation stalled at the end of June 2007
after several weeks of intensive debate. The bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform
legislation was negotiated with Bush Administration officials and introduced in the Senate on
May 21, 2007, as S.Amdt. 1150 to S. 1348. In terms of the point system provisions, S. 1639
mirrors the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that was announced in May and offers
a proposal for a “merit-based” point system to replace the current employment-based preference ³¹
system’s first three categories. This point system proposal, which is detailed in Appendix F,

²⁹^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁹⁷⁷^,^I^m^mⁱ^gr^ati^on^{of F}^o^r^e^ig^{n W}^o^r^k^e^r^s^:^Lab^o^r^M^a^r^k^e^t^Te^s^t^s^an^{d Pr}^o^t^e^c^tions^,^by^Ruth^Elleⁿ
^Wa^s^e^m^.
³⁰^U^.^{S. C}^o^m^m^is^sⁱ^{on on I}^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion R}^e^f^o^r^m^{, R}^e^por^{t to C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^Le^{gal I}^m^mⁱ^gr^ati^on:^Se^tti^ng^Pr^iorⁱ^tⁱ^e^s^{, W}^a^s^h^ing^t^on,
^D^C^{: G}^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt P}^rⁱⁿ^ting^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,¹⁹^95.^T^h^e^C^o^m^m^is^sⁱ^{on w}^a^s^es^tablis^he^d^a^s^a^r^e^s^u^{lt of}^a^m^a^nda^te^by^the^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^tion
^A^c^{t o}^f¹⁹⁹^{0 (}^P^.L^{. 10}^1-⁶⁴⁹⁾^.^I^t^is^of^te^{n r}^e^f^e^r^r^e^d^{to a}^s^the^J^o^r^d^aⁿ^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^{on f}^o^r^its^or^igⁱⁿ^a^l^c^h^aⁱ^r^w^om^aⁿ^{, the}^H^o^nor^a^b^le
^Barb^{ara Jo}^rd^an^.
³¹^A^p^pe^nd^ix^A^d^e^t^aⁱ^l^s^t^h^{ese p}^r^ef^ereⁿ^{ce cat}^ego^rⁱ^e^s.^S^.¹⁶³⁹^al^so^w^o^u^l^d^elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^at^{e m}^o^st^o^f^t^h^{e fa}^mⁱ^l^y^-b^a^s^ed^p^r^ef^eren^ce
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

would involve two tiers, namely a tier for merit-based legal permanent residents, and a
supplemental second tier for unauthorized workers who have as a prerequisite qualified for a ³²
proposed new Z visa category. On June 28, 2007, the key cloture vote on S. 1639 failed.
S. 1639 would establish 3 different worldwide ceiling levels for the “merit-based” system. For the
first five fiscal years post-enactment, the worldwide ceiling would be set at the level made ³³
available during FY2005—a reported total of 246,878. Of this number, 10,000 would be set
aside for exceptional Y visa holders; and 90,000 would be allocated for the reduction of
employment-based backlog existing on the date of enactment.
In the sixth year after enactment, the worldwide level for the merit point system LPRs would drop
to 140,000, provided that priority dates on cases pending has reached May 1, 2005. Of this
number, 10,000 would again be set aside for exceptional Y visa holders, and up to 90,000 would
be set aside for reduction of employment-based backlog existing on the date of enactment.
When the visa processing of the pending family-based and employment-based petitions reach
those with May 1, 2005 priority dates, it would trigger the provisions in S. 1639 that would
enable the Z-to-LPR adjustments to go into effect (discussed below). At this time, the merit point
system worldwide level would become 380,000. The Z-to-LPR adjustments, however, would
occur outside of this worldwide level. The proposal nonetheless would continue to set aside

10,000 for exceptional Y visa holders to become LPRs.

Both tiers of the S. 1639‘s point system would include multiple factors. Although most factors
would be one-dimensional (where scores would be based upon either meeting or not meeting a
factor requirement), some factors such as “employment” would be multidimensional. These
multidimensional factors would include scores as well as scales depending on the level of the
applicants qualification for the factor. According to the legislative proposal, adjustments to the
weighting scheme of the immigration factors and the level of the “passing mark” for applicants
would each be set by a newly established Standing Commission on Immigration and Labor ³⁴
Markets.

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^cat^ego^rⁱ^e^s.^F^o^{r a f}^u^l^l^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^,^see^CRS^Rep^o^r^t^RL³²²³⁵^,^U^.^{S. I}^m^mⁱ^gr^ati^oⁿ^Polⁱ^c^y^on^Pe^r^m^ane^nt^Ad^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^{, by}^Ruth
^Elle^{n W}^a^se^m^.
³²^T^h^e^{Z v}ⁱ^s^a^is^a^pr^op^os^e^d^ne^w^nonim^m^ig^r^a^{nt (}^o^r^te^m^por^a^r^y⁾^vⁱ^sa^ca^te^g^o^r^y^f^o^r^indivⁱ^dua^ls^w^{ho a}^r^e^uⁿ^la^w^f^ully^pr^e^s^eⁿ^t
ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e U.}^S^.^T^hⁱ^s^p^r^op^o^s^{ed vi}^{sa w}^o^u^l^d^al^l^o^w^ap^p^lⁱ^can^t^s^t^o^ad^j^u^st^st^at^u^s^t^o^l^a^wf^u^l^t^e^m^p^o^r^ar^y^p^r^esen^ce,^an^d^even^t^u^al^l^y
^g^a^{in le}^g^a^{l pe}^r^m^aⁿ^eⁿ^{t r}^e^sⁱ^de^nc^e^u^nde^r^e^a^r^ne^{d a}^d^jus^t^m^e^{nt pr}^ov^isⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, pr}^ov^ide^d^t^h^a^t^the^a^pplic^aⁿ^t^q^u^a^l^if^ie^s^.⁽^S^.A^m^d^t.
¹¹⁵^{0 §}⁶⁰¹⁾^.
³³^{U.S. De}^pa^rtm^e^{nt of}^Hom^e^la^{nd Se}^c^u^rity^{, O}^f^fⁱ^c^e^o^f^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion St}^a^tistic^s,²⁰^{05 Ye}^ar^b^ook^of^I^m^mⁱ^gr^atio^{n Stat}^is^tic^s^,
^ta^ble^6,²⁰⁰⁶^.
³⁴^S.Am^d^t^{. 1}¹⁵⁰^{, §}⁵⁰²^(b⁾⁽¹^)(C).

S. 1639‘s point system for merit-based immigrants would be based upon a total of 100 points
divided between four factors:
• employment experience in the United States,
• educational attainment,
• English language and civics proficiencies, and
• extended family residing in the United States.³⁵
Across these four categories it would include several sub-factors, such as “age” within the
“employment” factor, that would be meant to capture an applicant at an optimal time in terms of
human capital. Additionally, the proposal emphasizes skill sets in the fields of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and would grant an individual up to 16 points
for having a STEM-related education and employment. Individuals who complete a Department ³⁶
of Labor Registered Apprenticeship would also receive 8 points.
For the merit-based immigrants, S. 1639‘s point schedule would grant the largest number of
points for the employment factor. This category would grant up to a maximum of 47 points, based ³⁷
upon occupation, employer endorsement, and experience—all with U.S. firms—as well as age
and national interest criteria. Additionally, an applicant would receive up to 28 points for ³⁸
education, depending upon level of completed education and the field of study. Moreover, the
English and civics proficiencies factor would yield up to a maximum of 15 points. The factor for
extended family already in the United States would yield up to a maximum of 10 points.
For individuals wishing to qualify for LPR status under a Z visa, S. 1639‘s proposed point system
includes a supplemental point schedule. Although the legislative language is not precise, it
appears that individuals applying under the Z visa requirements would be assessed using the same
schedule as the merit-based LPRs in addition to the supplemental schedule, thereby adding fifty
additional points from various qualifying factors for a cumulative total of 150 points. These
proposed additional factors, which are also detailed in Appendix F, are

³⁵^S.Am^d^t^{. 1}¹⁵⁰^{, §}⁵⁰²^(b⁾⁽¹^)(A^).
³⁶^T^h^e^Se^na^te^bill^pro^pose^s^t^o^c^r^e^a^t^e^a^ne^w^stude^{nt v}ⁱ^sa^c^a^t^e^g^or^y^f^o^{r stude}^nts^inteⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{to st}^udy^{in a}^S^T^EM-re^la^te^d
^fⁱ^e^l^{d. T}^h^e^s^e^s^t^ude^nts^w^ould^not^h^a^v^e^{to de}^m^ons^tr^a^t^e^aⁿ^inte^nt^to^r^e^turⁿ^t^o^t^h^eⁱ^r^c^o^untr^y^of^r^e^sⁱ^de^nc^e^w^h^eⁿ^a^pplyⁱ^ng^f^o^r
^a^s^t^ude^nt^vⁱ^s^a^{. T}^h^is^pr^o^pos^a^l^a^l^s^o^inc^l^u^d^e^s^a^pr^ov^is^io^{n t}^o^a^l^l^o^w^f^o^r^of^f^-^c^a^m^pus^em^ploy^m^e^{nt a}^{nd a}ⁿ^e^x^te^ns^ion^of^the
^opti^ona^l^pr^a^c^tic^a^l^tr^aⁱⁿⁱ^ng^pe^rⁱ^o^d^{to a}^le^ng^th^of²⁴^m^onths^s^u^bs^e^q^u^e^{nt to}^g^r^a^dua^tio^{n. I}^t^isⁿ^o^{t c}^l^e^a^r^f^r^om^the^c^u^r^r^e^nt
^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^bⁱ^l^l^w^h^et^h^e^{r S}^T^E^M^st^u^d^e^nt^{s co}^u^l^d^recei^{ve i}^m^mⁱ^gr^atⁱ^oⁿ^p^oⁱ^nt^{s f}^o^{r t}^hⁱ^s^t^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g^un^d^e^{r t}^h^{e em}^p^l^o^y^men^t^cat^ego^r^y
^o^r^{as a regi}^st^ered^ap^p^r^en^tⁱ^ceshⁱ^p^f^o^{r ed}^u^catⁱ^oⁿ^.
³⁷^Aⁿ^a^pplic^aⁿ^{t w}^{ith U}^.^S^.^e^m^ploy^m^e^{nt in}^a^“^s^pe^cⁱ^a^lty^oc^c^upa^tion,”^a^s^de^te^r^m^ine^d^by^the^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^L^a^bor^{, w}^ould
^be^g^r^aⁿ^te^{d 2}⁰^poi^nts^.^Aⁿ^a^p^p^lic^aⁿ^{t w}^{ith U}^.^{S. e}^m^ploy^m^e^{nt in a}^“^h^ig^{h de}^m^a^{nd oc}^c^upa^tⁱ^on^,”^inc^l^udi^ng^the^to^p³⁰
^oc^c^upa^tio^ns^oⁿ^t^h^e¹⁰^-^y^e^a^r^{job g}^r^ow^{th lis}^{t f}^r^om^the^B^u^r^e^a^u^of^L^a^bor^Sta^tis^tic^s^,^w^oul^d^be^g^r^aⁿ^te^{d 1}⁶^poi^nts^.
³⁸^G^r^ad^u^a^t^e^o^r^p^r^o^f^essi^oⁿ^a^l^d^e^gree^w^o^u^l^d^recei^{ve 2}⁰^poⁱⁿ^t^s^,^b^ach^el^o^r^{’s d}^e^grees^w^o^u^l^d^recei^{ve 1}⁶^p^oⁱⁿ^t^s,^asso^ci^at^e’s
^d^e^grees^w^o^u^l^d^recei^{ve 1}⁰^poⁱⁿ^t^s^,^hⁱ^gh^sch^o^o^l^dⁱ^pl^o^m^{a w}^o^u^l^d^recei^v^e⁶^poⁱⁿ^t^s^,^and^{a co}^m^p^l^e^t^e^d^certⁱ^fⁱ^e^d^P^e^rkiⁿ^s
^V^o^catⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^E^d^u^catⁱ^oⁿ^p^r^o^g^ram^wo^u^l^d^recei^{ve 5}^p^oⁱⁿ^t^s^.^Aⁿ^ad^dⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ^al⁸^poⁱⁿ^t^s^{are avai}^l^a^b^l^{e i}^f^t^h^{e ap}^plⁱ^can^t^h^a^{s an}
^asso^ci^at^{es d}^e^gre^e^o^r^ab^o^v^{e i}ⁿ^{a S}^T^E^M^fⁱ^el^d^,^o^rⁱ^f^t^h^{e i}ⁿ^dⁱ^vi^du^al^com^p^l^e^t^e^{s a D}^e^p^a^rt^men^t^o^f^L^a^b^o^r^Regi^st^ered
^A^ppr^eⁿ^tic^e^s^hip.

• recent agricultural work experience,
• authorized U.S. employment experience,
• home ownership, and
• medical insurance.
Legal U.S. employment experience and home ownership would each be scored on a scale
dimension, where each qualifying year would yield one point, while agricultural work experience
would score 21, 23, or 25 points depending upon if the applicant had been employed in
agriculture for three, four, or five years, respectively. The U.S. employment experience would
yield up to 15 points, while the home ownership would grant the applicant up to a maximum of 5
points. Applicants with medical insurance would receive an additional 5 points.
As Figure 2 demonstrates, it appears that the percentage weighting of S. 1639‘s point system
would vary depending upon which tier an applicant was applying under. For merit-based
immigrants, 47.0% of the available points would be in the employment in the United States
category, while for Z visas the analogous employment category would account for 31.3% of the
available points. Additionally, education would be weighted less for Z visas, accounting for
18.7% of available points, as opposed to 28.0% for merit-based immigrants. For Z visas, the
points credited for agricultural experience would account for approximately 16.6% of the total
available points. Additionally, the other three factors exclusive to Z visas—a set of factors
seemingly aimed at applicant adaptability to the U.S.—would add up to 16.7% of the points total
for applicants under the Z visa tier. Lastly, English and civics, as well as extended family, would
both be relatively stronger weighted factors for the merit-based LPR visa tier than for the Z visa
tier.

Figure 2. Percentage Weighted to Each Factor in S.Amdt. 1150-Proposed Point
System, by Tier
⁴⁷⁵⁰
⁴⁵
⁴⁰
^31.³³⁵
²⁸³⁰
²⁵
^18.⁷¹⁶^.⁷²⁰
¹⁵
¹⁰^.⁰¹⁰¹⁰^.⁰¹⁵
^6.⁷¹⁰
^3.³^3.³⁵
⁰^E^m^pl^oy^m^eⁿ^t^E^duc^atⁱ^oⁿ^Eⁿ^g^lⁱ^s^h^&^E^x^t^ended^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^al^Lawf^u^l^U.^S^.^Hom^e^M^edi^c^a^l
^Ci^vⁱ^c^s^F^a^mily^Wo^r^k^E^x^perⁱ^enc^e^E^m^pl^oy^m^ent^O^w^ne^r^s^hi^p^Iⁿ^s^u^r^anc^e
^S^kⁱ^l^l^e^{d I}^m^mⁱ^gr^an^t^s^{Z V}ⁱ^s^a^s
^Source:^{CRS synthe}^{sis and p}^res^{entation of information from S.Amdt. 115}^{0. §502(}^b)(1)(A).

The current comprehensive immigration reform proposal embodied in S. 1639 is sparking a lively
discussion, and the point system is among its controversial features. The themes highlighted
below are illustrative of the multifaceted aspects of this debate.
Nations currently using points systems, such as those discussed above, typically seek to tailor the
selection process to recruit immigrants most likely to invigorate their economies. The stated
objectives are generally to encourage migration that complements shortfalls and skill mismatches
in their labor forces, coupled with other factors that are thought to correlate with success. The
challenge for policy makers is adapting a point system—a method that is typically used to
encourage migration—to manage the high-demand migration context of the United States. In this
debate, “passing marks” and per-country ceilings will become key elements.
The current preference system for selecting LPRs to the United States is largely based upon
relationships that are personal. More specifically, prospective LPRs qualify either through
marriage and close familial relationships and through the employer-employee relationships. A
point system might well move the selection process away from the judgements of individuals and
needs of local labor markets to a standardized set of criteria based on national priorities. At issue

in this context is who/what is perceived to be the proper people/optimal entity to determine who
will be permitted to come to the United States.
Whether a point system (or any new mechanism for selecting immigrants) is augmenting an
existing selection system or replacing an existing selection system, it affects the debate.
Establishing a new stream of immigrants is likely to spark objections among those who oppose
increasing immigration levels. If, alternatively, a point system replaces an existing set of
immigration preference categories then stakeholders in the current system are likely to oppose it.
If a point system creates an independent stream of immigrants it might reduce the control of
employers over the selection process and bypass the labor market protections for U.S. workers.
Given that many policy makers as well as observers view immigration policy as a “zero-sum
game,” this aspect may be the most contentious of all.
The challenge in formulating an immigration system is structuring it to represent the country’s
values, priorities and needs. The difficulty in many countries is designing a system that
effectively operationalizes these specific values, priorities and needs into immigration policy.
Point systems are appealing to some because they may be structured to provide a parsimonious
and transparent tool defining merit-based immigrant eligibility. Yet, paradoxically, these same
attributes of point systems also make them more likely to be a politically charged instrument. The
objective quantification of merit itself provokes debate over what human capital, personal traits
and values prospective immigrants should bring to a country.

Table A-1. U.S. Immigration Preference System and Numerical Limits
^Category^{Numerical Limit}
^{Total Family-}^{Sponsored Im}^migrants^480,⁰⁰⁰
^{Immediate relatives}^{Aliens who are the}^spous^{es and}^u^{nmarried minor}^Unlimited
^{children of U.S. citi}^{zens and the}^p^{arents of adult U.S.}
^citizens
^{Family-sponsored Preferen}^c^e^Immigrants^World^{wide Level 2}^26,⁰⁰⁰
¹^st^preference^{Unmarried sons a}^{nd daught}^{ers of}^citizens^23,4⁰⁰^{plus visas}^{not req}^{uired for}^th
⁴^prefer^ence
²^nd^prefe^rence^{(A) Spouses and children of}^{LPRs (B) Adult unmarried}^114,²⁰^{0 plus}^{visas not re}^{quired f}^or^st
^{sons and daug}^{hters of}^LPRs¹^p^refere^nce
³^rd^preference^{Married sons a}^{nd daughte}^{rs of cit}^izens^23,4⁰⁰^{plus visas}^{not req}^{uired for}
¹^st^{or 2}^nd^prefer^ence
⁴^th^preference^{Siblings of citizens age 21 and ove}^r^65,0⁰⁰^{plus visas}^{not req}^{uired for}
¹^st^{, 2}^nd^{, or 3}^rd^pre^fere^nce
^{Employment-Based Preference Immigrants}^World^{wide Level 1}^40,⁰⁰⁰
¹^st^preference^{Priority workers: persons of e}^xtr^{aordinary ability in the}^28.6%^{of worldwide lim}^{it plus}^th^th
^{arts, science, education, bu}^{siness, or athletics;}^unu^{sed 4}^and⁵^prefe^rence
^{outstanding p}^{rofessors and}^resea^{rchers; a}^{nd certain}
^{multi-national executives and ma}^nagers
²^nd^prefe^rence^Mem^be^{rs of the}^profes^{sions holding advanced degree}^{s or}^28.6%^{of worldwide lim}^{it plus}
^{persons of}^exce^{ptional abilities in}^{the scienc}^{es, art, or}^unu^{sed 1}^st^pre^feren^ce
^busines^s
³^rd^{preference—}^Skil^{led shortage workers with at l}^{east two years training}^28.6%^{of worldwide lim}^{it plus}^st^nd
^skilled^{or expe}^{rience, profes}^{sionals with baccalaureate}^degrees^unu^{sed 1}^or²^pr^efere^nce
³^rd^{preference—}^{Unskilled shortage workers}^10,0^{00 (take}^{n from t}^{he total}^rd
^“other”^{available for 3}^prefe^rence)
⁴^th^preference^“^{Special immigrants,” including ministers of religion,}^{7.1% of worldwide limit; rel}^igi^ous
^{religious workers other tha}^{n mini}^{sters, certain em}^ployees^{workers limited to 5,000}
^{of the U.S. government a}^{broad, and others}
⁵^th^preference^Employment^{creation investors}^{who invest at least $}¹^{7.1% of worldwide limit; 3,000}
^mill^{ion (amount may vary}^{in r}^{ural areas or areas}^{of high}^minimum^re^{served for in}^{vestors i}ⁿ
^unem^{ployment) which}^{will create at least 10}^{new jobs}^{rural or high}^u^nemployment^area^s
^Source:^{CRS summar}^{y of §§ 20}³^{(a), 203(b), and 2}^{04 of}^INA;^{8 U.S.C.}^{§ 115}^{3; exce}^{rpted f}^{rom CRS Report}
^RL322^35,^{U.S. Im}^{migration Policy o}ⁿ^{Permanent Admission}^s^{, by Rut}^h^E^{llen Wasem.}

Principal applicants under the Skilled Migrant Category are assessed against:
• health, character and English language requirements; and
• employability and capacity building requirements; and
• settlement and contribution requirements.
An application under the Skilled Migrant Category will be approved if:
• the principal applicant and family members included in the application meet
health and character, and English language requirements where required; and
• the principal applicant qualifies for the points for employability and capacity
building factors on the basis of which their Expression of Interest was selected
from the Pool; or
• the principal applicant meets the criteria set from time to time by the Minister of
Immigration on the basis of which their Expression of Interest was selected from
the Pool; and
• the principal applicant is less than 56 years of age; and
• the principal applicant is assessed as having the ability to successfully settle in
and contribute to New Zealand; and
• all necessary verification of the application has been completed.
• PASSING MARK: 140 POINTS
• EXPRESSION OF INTEREST: 100 POINTS

³⁹^Inf^o^rm^a^{tion in t}^h^{is se}^c^tio^{n is c}^o^m^p^ile^{d f}^r^o^m^the^Ne^w^Ze^a^l^a^{nd Im}^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion Se}^rv^ic^e^,^O^p^e^r^atio^ns^M^anu^al:^Par^t^3,
^Re^sⁱ^de^nc^e^{, A}^p^{ril 10}^{, 2}⁰⁰⁷^,^pp^{. 8}⁷^-^1,8⁷^-2^{, a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.i^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^tion.g^o^v^t^.nz^/^mⁱ^g^r^aⁿ^t/^g^e^ne^ra^l/
^g^e^ne^r^a^linf^o^r^m^a^tion/ope^r^a^ti^ons^m^a^nua^l/,^vⁱ^s^ite^{d Ma}^y^10,²⁰^07.

Table B-1. New Zealand Point Distribution
^{FACTORS POINTS}
^Skil^l^{ed Employment (Maxim}^{um 95 Points):}
^•^Curre^{nt skilled employment in N}^{ew Zealand for 12}^{months or}^more⁶⁰
^•^{Offer of s}^{killed employment in N}^{ew Zealand or curre}^{nt skilled employment in Ne}^{w Zealand}
^{for less than}¹²^mont^hs⁵⁰
^{Bonus points for e}^mploym^{ent or offer of employ}^{ment in:}
^•^{An identified futur}^{e growth a}^{rea, identified cluster}⁵
^•^{An area of a}^{bsolute skills shortage}¹⁰
^•^{Region outside Auckland}¹⁰
^•^{Partner em}^{ployment or offe}^{r of e}^mployment¹⁰
^{Work Experience (Maximu}^{m 65 Points):}
^•^{2 years}¹⁰
^•^{4 years}¹⁵
^•^{6 years}²⁰
^•^{8 years}²⁵
^•^{10 yea}^rs³⁰
^{Additional bonus points if work experience in New Zealand:}
^•^{2 years}⁵
^•^{4 years}¹⁰
^•^{6 years or}^more¹⁵
^{Additional bonus points for work experience in an identified fu}^{ture grow}^{th area, identified cluster:}
^•^{2 to 5 yea}^rs⁵
^•^{6 years or}^more¹⁰
^{Additional bonus points for work experience in an area of absolute skills shortage:}
^•^{2 to 5 yea}^rs⁵
^•^{6 years or}^more¹⁰
^{Qualifications (Maximum 100 Points):}
^•^{Recognized basic qualification (e.}^{g. trade qualification, dipl}^{oma, bachelors degree, bac}^helors⁵⁰
^{degree with Honors)}
^•^{Recognized post-graduate qualification (Masters degree, Doctorate)}⁵⁵
^{Bonus points for:}
^•^{Recognized New Zealand qualification (and at least two years stud}^{y in New Zealand)}¹⁰
^•^{Qualification in an identified futur}^{e growth area, cluste}^{r or area of}^{absolute skill shortage}⁵
^•^{Qualification in an area of a}^{bsolute skill shortage}¹⁰
^•^{Partner qualifications}¹⁰
^•^{Close family support in}^{New Zea}^land¹⁰

^{FACTORS POINTS}
^{Age (20 to 55 Yrs) (Maximum 30 Points):}
^•^20-2⁹³⁰
^•^30-3⁹²⁵
^•^40-4⁴²⁰
^•^45-4⁹¹⁰
^•^50-5⁵⁵

To qualify for immigration, the principal applicant must at a minimum demonstrate the following
criteria:
• Applicant can work, or continue to work, in his chosen field in the United
Kingdom. If necessary, he will need to show relevant qualifications and
professional membership to work in certain occupations in the United Kingdom.
• Applicant can support himself without recourse to public funds (this can be
demonstrated on the basis of either savings or earning potential)
• Applicant intends to make the United Kingdom his main home
• Applicant has either never been made bankrupt or is considered to be a
discharged bankrupt.
• Applicant has never been convicted of any criminal offences
• Applicant is proficient in the English language.
• PASSING MARK: 75 POINTS
Table C-1. United Kingdom Point Distribution
^{FACTORS POINTS}
^{Qualification (Maximum 55 Points):}
^•^Ph.D.⁵⁰
^•^{Masters Degre}^{e or Professional L}^{evel Qualification}³⁵
^(e.g.^{, Chartered Accou}^ntant)
^•^{A Bachelors Degree}³⁰
^{United Kingdom q}^ualificatio^{n or}^wo^{rk experience (Maxi}^{mum 5 Points):}
^•^{Either United Kingdom q}^ualificati^{on or work ex}^perience⁵

⁴⁰^Inf^o^rm^a^{tion in t}^h^{is se}^c^tio^{n is c}^o^m^p^ile^{d f}^r^o^m^the^T^e^sti^m^on^y^of^For^e^ig^{n L}^a^w^Spe^cⁱ^a^lis^{t a}^t^L^a^w^Lⁱ^br^ar^y^o^f^C^ong^r^e^s^s
^Cl^{are F}^eⁱ^k^ert^,ⁱⁿ^U.^S^.^Con^g^ress,^Ho^u^s^{e Co}^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^t^h^{e J}^u^dⁱ^ci^ar^y^,^S^u^b^c^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^Immⁱ^gratⁱ^oⁿ^,^Ci^tⁱ^zen^shⁱ^p^,
^Ref^u^g^ees,^Bo^rd^{er S}^ecu^ri^t^y^,^an^d^Int^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^L^a^w^,^H^e^ar^ing^{on A}ⁿ^E^x^am^inat^io^{n of}^Po^int^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^as^a^M^e^{thod f}^o^r^th^st
^Se^le^c^{ting I}^m^mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^ts^{, he}^a^rⁱⁿ^g^s^{, 1}¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^s^e^s^s^{., Ma}^y^{1, 2}⁰⁰⁷⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^aⁿ^d^Uⁿ^ite^{d K}ⁱ^ng^dom
^H^o^m^e^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^{A Poi}ⁿ^ts^-^B^as^e^d^Sy^s^t^e^m^:^M^a^kⁱ^{ng M}ⁱ^gr^atio^{n W}^o^r^k^f^o^r^Br^itain^{, C}^m⁶⁷⁴^1,^Ma^r^c^{h 2}⁰⁰⁶^{, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.hom^e^o^f^f^ic^e^.^g^o^v^.^uk^/^d^o^c^um^eⁿ^ts^/^c^om^m^a^nd-^po^ints^-^b^a^s^e^d^-^mⁱ^g^r^a^tion?^vⁱ^ew⁼^B^ina^r^y^,^vⁱ^s^ite^{d Ma}^y^{10, 20}^07.

^{FACTORS POINTS}
^{Age (M}^{aximum 20 Points):}
^•^{27 or}^under²⁰
^•^{28 or}²⁹¹⁰
^•^{30 or}³¹⁵
^{Past Earnings}^{(Maximum 45 Points):}
^•^£16,0^00-1^7,9⁹⁹⁵
^•^£18,0^00-1^9,9⁹⁹¹⁰
^•^£20,0^00-2^2,9⁹⁹¹⁵
^•^£23,0^00-2^5,9⁹⁹²⁰
^•^£26,0^00-2^8,9⁹⁹²⁵
^•^£29,0^00-3^1,9⁹⁹³⁰
^•^£32,0^00-3^4,9⁹⁹³⁵
^•^£35,0^00-3^9,9⁹⁹⁴⁰
^•^£40,0⁰⁰⁺⁴⁵
^Notes:^{The past earnings}^{are t}^h^{ose for countries cat}^{egorized as “Band A” countries, whic}^{h includ}^{es the U}^nited
^{States. The HSMP contains five di}^fferent^ba^{nds for distributing}^poin^{ts for past}^{earnings, de}^{pending o}ⁿ^which
^{country t}^{he a}^{pplicant is ap}^{plying f}^{rom. These bands}^vary^{based on i}^{ncome levels in count}^{ries around}^{the world.}
^{For example, while an ap}^{plicant f}^{rom Norway would use t}^{he Band}^{A listing of salaries, an applicant f}^rom
^Afghanistan^{would use Band}^{E. Thus, while the a}^pplicant^{from No}^{rway would need pas}^{t ear}^{nings of}^{over £4}^0,00⁰
^{to attain the maxim}^um^{points allotted for that category, the a}^ppli^{cant from A}^fgha^{nistan would nee}^{d past ear}^nings
^{of over £3,6}^{00 to ac}^{hieve the}^sa^{me nu}^mber^{of category}^{points. For band listings and f}^urt^her^past^earnings
^{guidance, see United Kingdom H}^{ome Office,}^{Highly Skille}^{d Migrant}^{Programme: Guidance for Applicants}^{, June}^1,
²⁰⁰^{7, at}^htt^{p://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/635}^3/¹¹⁴^06/⁴⁹⁵^52/^hsm^p1guidanc^{e, visited June}^{5, 20}^07.
The United Kingdom currently has a provision for graduates of 50 top MBA programs,⁴¹ who
have graduated since December 2004, to remain in the United Kingdom for up to 12 months in
order to seek employment and gain the necessary points to qualify for permanent residence. The
basic structure of the program will also be taken up in a Post-Study category for skilled overseas
students who have chosen to study at an institution in the United Kingdom. These students would
thus be given the same 12 month transitional opportunity.

⁴¹^T^h^e^lis^{t of}^the⁵⁰^qua^lif^yⁱ^ng^MB^A^pr^og^r^a^m^s^m^a^y^be^f^{ound a}^t^h^ttp:^//w^w^w^.h^m^-^tr^e^a^s^ur^y^.^g^o^v^.^uk^/m^e^d^ia^/A^/⁵^/
^pbr⁰⁴^_5^0m^ba^s^_50.p^d^f^,^vⁱ^s^ite^{d M}^a^y^{24, 2}⁰⁰⁷^.

In order to qualify for immigration, the principal applicant must at a minimum demonstrate the
following criteria:
• under 45;
• English at least at “vocational” level;
• have a post secondary education;
• nominated occupation on skilled occupations list (SOL); and
• necessary work experience in his nominated occupation.
• PASSING MARK: 110-120 POINTS
• RESERVE POOL: 70-120 POINTS
Table D-1. Australian Point Distribution
^{FACTORS POINTS}
^{Nominated Occu}^{pation on th}^{e Skilled Occupations List (Maximu}^{m 60 Points):}
^•^{Highly Sought Skills}⁶⁰
^•^{Very Sought Skills}⁵⁰
^•^{Sought Skills}⁴⁰
^{Age (Maximum 30 Points):}
^•^18-2⁹³⁰
^•^30-3⁴²⁵
^•^35-3⁹²⁰
^•^39-4⁴¹⁵
^{English Lang}^{uage Pr}^oficiency^{(Maximum 20 Points):}
^•^{Native English s}^{peaker; or}²⁰
^•^{gained a tertiary degree f}^{rom a U}^{niversity whe}^{re E}^{nglish is the}^pri^{mary language}^{of instr}^uction;²⁰
^or

⁴²^Inf^o^rm^a^{tion in t}^h^{is se}^c^tio^{n is c}^o^m^p^ile^{d f}^r^o^m^the^T^e^sti^m^on^y^of^For^e^ig^{n L}^a^w^Spe^cⁱ^a^lis^{t a}^t^L^a^w^Lⁱ^br^ar^y^o^f^C^ong^r^e^s^s
^Lⁱ^s^a^W^h^ite^{, in U}^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^o^us^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on the}^J^u^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^Subc^om^m^itte^e^{on I}^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion, C}^itiz^eⁿ^s^h^ip^,
^Ref^u^g^ees,^Bo^rd^{er S}^ecu^ri^t^y^,^an^d^Int^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^L^a^w^,^H^e^ar^ing^{on A}ⁿ^E^x^am^inat^io^{n of}^Po^int^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^as^a^M^e^{thod f}^o^r^th^st
^Se^le^c^{ting I}^m^mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^ts^{, he}^a^rⁱⁿ^g^s^{, 1}¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^s^e^s^s^{., Ma}^y^{1, 2}⁰⁰⁷⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.

^{FACTORS POINTS}
^•^{achieved a ba}^{nd score of at least}^{6 on all four compo}^{nents of t}^{he I}^{nternational E}^nglish²⁰
^{Language Testing}^{System (IE}^{LTS) test; or}
^•^{achieved a ba}^{nd score of at least}^{5 on all four compo}^{nents of t}^{he I}^{ELTS test}¹⁵
^{Specific W}^o^{rk Experience (}^{Maximum 10 Points):}
^•^{Nominated occupation is worth}⁶⁰^{points and a}^{pplicant worked i}ⁿ^{nominated occu}^{pation for}¹⁰
^{at least the pas}^{t thr}^{ee out of fou}^r^years
^•^{Nominated occupation is worth}^{40, 5}⁰^{or 6}⁰^{points and ap}^plicant^{worked in skilled}⁵
^{employment (in an}^{y occu}^{pation on the SO}^{L) for at least the}^{past t}^{hree out of}^{four yea}^rs
^{Employment Of}^fer/Oc^cup^{ation in Demand}^{(Maximum 20 Points):}
^•^{Nominated occupation is fou}^{nd on the}^{Migration Occ}^{upations in D}^{emand List (MODL)}¹⁵
^•^{Nominated occupation is fou}^{nd on the}^{MODL a}^{nd ap}^{plicant holds a job offer in nominated}
^{occupation from a}ⁿ^Aus^{tralian organization that has em}^{ployed at least 10}^{people on a}^full-time²⁰
^{basis for the}^pre^{vious two fiscal years}
^{Australian Qu}^{alification (Ma}^{ximum 10 Points):}
^•^{At least a one-year diploma from}^{an Aust}^{ralian unive}^rsity⁵
^•^{A Ph.D. (Doct}^{orate) from an Aus}^{tralian university}¹⁰
^{Spousal Qu}^{alifications (Maximum 5 Points):}
^•^{Spouse (or de facto spou}^{se) mee}^{ts all the basic re}^quireme^{nts a}^{nd is able to nominate an}
^{occupation from t}^{he SOL a}^{nd ha}^{ve his/her}^q^{ualifications assessed as suitable for}^his/her⁵
^{nominated occupation}
^{Other (Maximum 5 Points):}
^•^{Worked in Australia on a valid visa for at least six mont}^{hs out of}^t^{he past}^four^{years in a}^skilled⁵
^{occupation (one fou}^{nd on the}^SOL)
^•^{Invest at least A}^$¹^00,0^{00 in}^{a De}^{signated Governm}^{ent inve}^stment^{in Australia for a ter}^{m of at}⁵
^{least 12 mont}^hs
^•^{Fluent (to the level of Professional Interp}^{reter / Tra}^{nslator as set}^{out by t}^{he National}
^{Australian Association of Translators and Inte}^rp^{reters) in on}^{e of}^{Australia’s community}⁵

^languages

In order to qualify for skilled immigration, the principal applicant must at a minimum
demonstrate a sufficient number of points under the points criteria. If the applicant does not have
an offer of employment, he must additionally show sufficient level of funds on hand to qualify.
By household size, these levels of funds are:
• For a single person C$10,168
For a family unit consisting of the following:
• 2 persons C$12,659
• 3 persons C$15,563
• 4 persons C$18,895
• 5 persons C$21,431
• 6 persons C$24,170
• 7 persons or more C$26,910
• PASSING MARK: 67 POINTS
Table E-1. Canadian Point Distribution
^{FACTORS POINTS}
^{Age (Maximum 10 Points):}
^•^{Between 2}¹^and⁴⁹¹⁰
^•^{Either 20}^{or 50}⁸
^•^{Either 19}^{or 51}⁶
^•^{Either 18}^{or 52}⁴
^•^{Either 17}^{or 53}²

⁴³^Inf^o^rm^a^{tion in t}^h^{is se}^c^tio^{n is c}^o^m^p^ile^{d f}^r^o^m^the^T^e^sti^m^on^y^of^Senior^For^e^ig^{n L}^a^w^Spe^cⁱ^a^lis^{t a}^t^L^a^w^Lⁱ^br^a^r^y^of
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^Ste^pheⁿ^{F. C}^l^a^r^k^e^{, in U}^.^{S. C}^o^ng^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^oⁿ^the^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^,^Subc^om^m^itte^e^{on I}^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^tion,
^Ci^tⁱ^zen^shⁱ^p^,^Ref^u^gees,^Bo^rd^{er S}^ecu^ri^t^y^,^an^d^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^L^a^w^,^H^e^ar^ing^oⁿ^Aⁿ^Ex^amⁱ^nat^io^{n of}^Po^int^Sy^s^t^e^m^s^as^a^th^st
^M^e^{thod f}^o^r^Se^le^c^tin^{g I}^m^mⁱ^gr^an^ts^{, h}^earⁱⁿ^gs,¹¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^s^e^s^s^.,^Ma^y^{1, 200}^{7 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^a^nd
^Citiz^eⁿ^ship^aⁿ^d^Im^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion Ca}ⁿ^a^da^{, Ov}^e^r^se^a^s^P^r^oc^e^ssing^Ma^nua^l^:^Fe^de^ra^{l Sk}^ille^{d W}^o^rk^e^r^{s, n}^o^{. O}^P^{6, J}^u^ly^{17, 2}⁰⁰⁶^,
^{pp. 11}^-2^8,^a^t^http^://w^ww^.^c^ic^.g^c^.^c^a^/^m^a^nua^ls-g^uide^s/eⁿ^g^lish/op/^op⁰⁶^e^.^pdf^{, v}ⁱ^site^{d Ma}^y^{22, 2}⁰⁰⁷^.

^{FACTORS POINTS}
^{Official Lan}^{guage Pr}^oficiency^a^{(Maximum 24 Points):}
^{First official langu}^age:
^•^{High proficiency}¹⁶
^•^{Moderate proficiency}⁸
^•^{Basic proficiency}²
^{Second official language:}
^•^{High proficiency}⁸
^•^{Moderate proficiency}⁸
^•^{Basic proficiency}²
^{Work Experience (Maximu}^{m 21 Points):}
^•^{At least 1 year}¹⁵
^•^{At least 2 years}¹⁷
^•^{At least 3 years}¹⁹
^•^{4 or more yea}^rs²¹
^{Employment Of}^{fer (Maximum 10 Points):}
^•^{Applicant ha}^{s a job offer a}^p^p^{roved by H}^{uman Resou}^{rces Develop}^{ment Canada (HRDC).}
^{Applicant m}^{ust ha}^{ve the}^{abilities to perform t}^{he tasks of t}^{he job, a}^{nd meet th}^{e educational and,}¹⁰
^{where r}^{elevant, licensing and reg}^{ulatory req}^uirements^{for th}^{e job. Applicant may}^{also gain the}
^{ten points in}^{some circum}^stances^{he is already in em}^{ployment in C}^anada.
^Educ^{ation (Maximum 25 Points):}
^•^{Completed secondary school edu}^{cational credential}⁵
^•^{One year}^{post-secondary}^educati^{onal credential, other than a}^univ^{ersity credential, and at least}¹²
^{12 yea}^{rs of completed f}^{ull-time o}^r^{full-time equivalent st}^udies
^•^{One year}^{post-secondary}^educati^{onal credential, other than a}^univ^{ersity educational credential,}¹⁵
^{and at least 1}³^{years of}^complete^{d full-time or full-time equivalent studies}
^•^{One year}^u^{niversity educational c}^{redential at the ba}^{chelor’s level, and at least 1}³^years^of¹⁵
^{completed full-time or full-time e}^{quivalent st}^udies
^•^{Two year post-secondary edu}^{cational credential, other than a}^univ^{ersity educational credential,}²⁰
^{and at least 1}⁴^{years of}^complete^{d full-time or full-time equivalent studies}
^•^{A university ed}^{ucational credenti}^{al of two years or more at th}^{e ba}^{chelor’s level, and at least 14}²⁰
^{years of completed f}^{ull-time or full-t}^{ime equivalent st}^udies
^•^{Three year}^{post-secondary ed}^uca^{tional credential, other than a}^uni^{versity educational}²²
^{credential, and at least 15}^{years o}^f^{completed full-time or full-time equivalent st}^udies
^•^{Two or more university educa}^{tional credentials at the}^bac^{helor’s l}^{evel and at least 1}⁵^years^of²²
^{completed full-time or full-time e}^{quivalent st}^udies
^•^{University educational credential}^{at the maste}^{r’s or doctoral level}^{and at least 1}⁷^{years of}²⁵

^{completed full-time or full-time e}^{quivalent st}^udies

^{FACTORS POINTS}
^{Adaptability (Maximum 10 P}^oints):
^{Educational credenti}^{als of the acco}^{mpanying spous}^{e or co}^mm^{on-law p}^artner:
^•^{Completed a one or two-year po}^{st-secondary p}^{rogram and}^{has at}^{least 13 yea}^{rs of total}³
^education
^•^{Completed a three-year}^{post sec}^{ondary program a}^{nd ha}^{s at least}^{15 yea}^{rs of total education}⁴
^•^{Completed a three-year}^univer^{sity degree and}^{has at least}^{15 yea}^rs^{of total education}⁴
^•^{Completed a Master’s or Ph.D. and has at least}¹⁷^{years of total e}^ducation⁵
^{Previous study in Canada:}
^•^{Applicant or accom}^panying^spous^{e or common-law partne}^{r compl}^{eted a program of}^full-time
^{study of at least two years’ du}^{ration at a post-secondary i}^{nstitution in Canada, p}^{rovided this}⁵
^{occurred afte}^{r the}^{age of seve}^nte^{en and with}^{valid study permits.}
^{Previous work in Canada:}
^•^{A minimum of one y}^{ear of f}^ull-ti^{me work in Canada on a}^{valid wo}^{rk per}^{mit for an a}^{pplicant or}⁵
^accompanying^spouse^{or common-law partne}^r.
^{Relatives in Canada:}
^•^{Applicant or accom}^panying^spous^{e or common-law partne}^{r ha}^{s a r}^{elative (parent, grandpa}^rent,
^{child, grandchild, child}^{of a parent}^{, child of a grandparent, or g}^rand^{child of a parent) w}^{ho is}⁵
^{residing in Canada and is a Canad}^{ian citizen or perma}^nent^resident^.
^{Arranged employment:}
^•^{Applicant ha}^{s ear}^{ned points}^unde^{r the}^Employment^Offe^{r factor}⁵
^a.^Language^{skills are based u}^{pon re}^{ading, writing, l}^{istening to, and sp}^{eaking skills. Each skill may be sc}^ored
^individual^{ly. For the first official la}^{nguage t}^{he ap}^{plicant is given}^{4 po}^{ints per}^high^{proficiency skill, 2 p}^oints
^{per moderately p}^{roficient skill, and one point for eac}^{h skill where}^{basic proficiency is demon}^strated^{. For the}
^{second official language, these ski}^{ll scores are adjusted to 2 points,}^{2 points a}^{nd 1}^{point, respe}^{ctively. For}
^{both the}^{first and}^{second official l}^{anguage, a pe}^{rson may}^{only be g}^r^{anted a maxim}^{um of 2}^{points f}^{rom the}
^{basic proficiency}^{category across}^{all four language skills.}
^b.^{The applicant or}^{qualifying s}^pous^{e or part}^{ner is not}^req^{uired to h}^{ave obtained an ed}^{ucational credential for}
^{these two years}^{of study in}^Cana^{da to earn the}^{points, b}^{ut simply}^{to have completed at least two y}^{ears of}
^study.

Table F-1. Categories and Point Distributions in S. 1639
^{Category Description}^Points
^{Employment (Maximum 47 Points):}
²⁰^•^{U.S. employment in Specialty Occupation (Depart}^{ment of}^Labor
^Occupation^{definition) U.}^{S. employment in High Demand Oc}^cu^{pation (Bureau}^of¹⁶
^{Labor Statistics’ largest 10-yr job}^{growth, top 30)}
^{National interest/critical}^•^{U.S. employment in STEM or hea}^{lth occupation, cur}^rent^{for at leas}^t⁸
^infrastr^ucture^{1 year}
^{Employer endorsement}^•^{A U.S. employer wil}^{ling to pay 50}^{% of LPR application fee eithe}^{r 1)}^{offers a job, or 2) attests}^{for a cu}^{rrent e}^mployee⁶
^{2 pe}^{r year}
^Experience^•^{Years of work for U.S. firm}^{(max 1}⁰
^points)
^{Age of worker}^•^{Worker’s age: 25-3}⁹³
^Educ^{ation (Maximum 28 Points):}
²⁰
¹⁶^•^{M.D., M.B}^.A.^{, Graduate degree et}^{c., Bachelors degree, Associates}^degree
¹⁰^{Terminal Degree}
⁶^•^{High School diploma or GED Completed certified Perkins}^{Vocational Education program}
⁵
⁸^{Bonus Points}^•^{Completed Department of}^Labor^{Registered Appre}^nticeshipSTE^M,
^{associate degree and above}⁸
^{English & Civics (Maximum 15 points):}
¹⁵
¹⁰^{Skill Level}^•^{Native speake}^{r of E}^{nglish or TOE}^{FL score of 7}⁵^{or highe}^rTOEFL^{score of 60-}^{74Pass USCIS Citizenship Tests}^{in E}^{nglish and Civics}
⁶
^{Extended Family (Max}^{imum 10 Points):}
⁸^•^{Adult (21 or older) son or daugh}^{ter of U.S. citi}^{zen (USC) Adult (2}¹
⁶^{Scores Applied if}^{or older) son or daughter of legal perma}^nent^{resident (LPR)}
⁴^{Threshold of 55 in Above}^Categories^•^{Sibling of USC or LPR}
^•^{If had a}^{pplied for a family visa in a}^{ny of the}^{above categories afte}^r²

^{May 1, 2}⁰⁰⁵

Table F-2. Categories and Point Distributions in S. 1639: Supplemental Schedule for
Z Visas
^{Category Description}^Max^Points
^{Supplemental Schedule for Z Visas (Maximum 50 Points):}
^•^{Worked in agriculture for}^{3 yea}^r^{s, 150}^{days pe}^{r year}²¹
^•^{Worked in agriculture for}^{4 yea}^r^s⁽¹⁵^{0 days for}^{3 year}^s,²³^Agricultu^{re National}
¹⁰⁰^{days for}^{1 year)}^Interest
^•^{Worked in agriculture for}^{5 yea}^r^{s, 100}^{days pe}^{r year}²⁵
^{U.S. Employ}^ment^•^{Year of lawful employment}^{1 pe}^{r year (ma}^{x 1}⁵
^Experience^points)
^{Home ownership}^•^{Own place of}^residence^{1 pe}^{r year ow}^{ned (max}⁵^points)
^{Medical Insurance}^•^Curre^{nt medical insura}^{nce for e}ⁿ^{tire family}⁵
^Ru^t^h^Elleⁿ^W^a^se^m ^Cha^d^C.^H^a^d^d^a^l
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿ^P^o^lic^y^An^al^y^s^{t i}ⁿ^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿ^P^o^lic^y
^r^w^as^e^m^@crs^.l^oc.g^o^v^{, 7-}⁷³⁴²^ch^addal^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-³⁷⁰¹