President Obama is Taking Action on Immigration: Presidential Memorandum — Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release November 21, 2014
Presidential Memorandum — Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century

November 21, 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century

Throughout our Nation’s history, immigrants have helped the United States build the world’s strongest economy. Immigrants represent the majority of our PhDs in math, computer science, and engineering, and over one quarter of all U.S.-based Nobel laureates over the past 50 years were foreign-born. Immigrants are also more than twice as likely as native-born Americans to start a business in the United States. They have started one of every four American small businesses and high-tech startups, and more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children.

But despite the overwhelming contributions of immigrants to our Nation’s prosperity, our immigration system is broken and has not kept pace with changing times. To address this issue, my Administration has made commonsense immigration reform a priority, and has consistently urged the Congress to act to fix the broken system. Such action would not only continue our proud tradition of welcoming immigrants to this country, but also reduce Federal deficits, increase productivity, and raise wages for all Americans. Immigration reform is an economic, national security, and moral imperative.

Even as we continue to seek meaningful legislative reforms, my Administration has pursued administrative reforms to streamline and modernize the legal immigration system. We have worked to simplify an overly complex visa system, one that is confusing to travelers and immigrants, burdensome to businesses, and results in long wait times that negatively impact millions of families and workers. But we can and must do more to improve this system. Executive departments and agencies must continue to focus on streamlining and reforming the legal immigration system, while safeguarding the interest of American workers.

Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to modernize and streamline the U.S. immigration system, I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Recommendations to Improve the Immigration System. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security (Secretaries), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Economic Council, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Attorney General, and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and Education, shall develop:

(i) in consultation with private and nonfederal public actors, including business people, labor leaders, universities, and other stakeholders, recommendations to streamline and improve the legal immigration system — including immigrant and non-immigrant visa processing — with a focus on reforms that reduce Government costs, improve services for applicants, reduce burdens on employers, and combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the system;

(ii) in consultation with stakeholders with relevant expertise in immigration law, recommendations to ensure that administrative policies, practices, and systems use all of the immigrant visa numbers that the Congress provides for and intends to be issued, consistent with demand; and

(iii) in consultation with technology experts inside and outside the Government, recommendations for modernizing the information technology infrastructure underlying the visa processing system, with a goal of reducing redundant systems, improving the experience of applicants, and enabling better public and congressional oversight of the system.

(b) In developing the recommendations as set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries shall establish metrics for measuring progress in implementing the recommendations and in achieving service-level improvements, taking into account the Federal Government’s responsibility to protect the integrity of U.S. borders and promote economic opportunity for all workers.

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The Secretary of State is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

In Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio Supreme Court splits 5-4 on Part of Child Status Protection Act

LexisNexis:
Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3991 (June 9, 2014): The BIA’s textually reasonable construction of the Child Status Protection Act’s ambiguous language was entitled to deference, meaning that an aged-out “child” cannot retain his or her priority date if a new petitioner is needed.
More at LexisNexis

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit conflict as to the meaning of INA §253(h)(3), 8 U.S.C. §1153(h)(3), part of the Child Status Protection Act. The Court (Kagan, joined by Kennedy and Ginsburg) began with a description of the family-based visa process, an explanation of the CSPA, and the facts of Matter of Wang [enhanced opinion] and the two cases consolidated in the Supreme Court. The cases involved children of beneficiaries of either F3 or F4 beneficiaries. The children aged out while their parents waited for their visas. Their parents then filed petitions to bring in the children, and objected to the children being given priority dates based on the approval dates of the new petitions instead of the petitions of which the children were derivative — not principal — beneficiaries. The key was what Congress meant by “the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.”

The court explained that §1153(h)(3) is “Janus-faced,” in that first part covers all aged-out family-based beneficiaries, but the key language “looks another way, toward a remedy that can apply to only a subset of those beneficiaries—and one not including the respondents’ offspring.” The Court ruled that, when the CSPA was passed, “automatic” meant that the conversion must occur “seamlessly,” with the same petitioner and no decisions, contingencies, delays, or even new filing. Likewise, “conversion” involves only a “mechanical” process. The Court added that interpreting the language otherwise would violate the “core premise” of the family-based system: that each beneficiary needs a “qualified” petitioner — that is, someone vetted by the immigration authorities, not swapped in. Furthermore, the Court observed that at the most logical moment for conversion, the putative replacement petitioner is not yet eligible to petition, because he or she is not yet an LPR. The court rejected the applicants’ arguments that every aged-out beneficiary can automatically convert, that the priority date can be retained even without automatic conversion, and that the BIA’s method of resolving any statutory ambiguity was arbitrary and capricious. However, the Court pointed out that it was merely deferring to the BIA’s construction, not saying that it was the only reasonable one. “Confronted with a self-contradictory, ambiguous provision in a complex statutory scheme, the Board chose a textually reasonable constructions consonant with its view of the purposes and policies underlying immigration law.”

The Chief Justice (joined by Scalia) concurred in the judgment, agreeing that §1153(h)(3) was ambiguous, but not that the first part pointed the opposite way from the second. Justice Alito dissented, saying that there was an appropriate category to which to convert, and so the applicants’ petitions should have been converted and original priority dates retained. Justice Sotomayor (joined by Breyer and for everything but one footnote by Thomas) also dissented. She wrote that §1153(h)(3) was unambiguous that any aged-out child in any of the family-based categories should be allowed to keep his or her priority date.

NOTE: For more on this subject, see Charles Gordon et al., Immigration Law and Procedure §36.04; David Froman, De Osorio v. Mayorkas, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20177 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2012) (en banc) [enhanced opinion]: Suggestions for Implementing Court’s Ruling Upholding Child Status Protection Act Coverage for Over-Twenty-One Derivative Beneficiaries: An Emerging Perspective, 2012 Emerging Issues 6736

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site

McKinsey: Education to employment: Getting Europe’s youth into work

Youth unemployment across the European Union remains unacceptably high, to the detriment of current and future generations. Addressing it requires understanding its causes and then relentlessly pursuing solutions.

January 2014

 

The problem of youth unemployment in the European Union is not new. Youth unemployment has been double or even triple the rate of general unemployment in Europe for the last 20 years. The events of the past few years have dramatically exacerbated it, however: 5.6 million young people are unemployed across Europe, and a total of 7.5 million are neither being educated nor are they working. Moreover, while young people are eager to work, more than half of those without jobs say they simply can’t find one—all while businesses across Europe insist they struggle to find young people with the skills they need.

To understand this disconnect and what can be done about it, McKinsey built on the methodology used in our 2012 publication, Education to Employment: Designing a System that Works.1 We concentrated on four broad questions:

  1. Is the scale of the youth-unemployment problem in Europe a result of lack of jobs, lack of skills, or lack of coordination?
  2. What are the obstacles that youth face on their journey from education to employment?
  3. Which groups of youth and employers in Europe are struggling the most?
  4. What can be done to address the problem?

To answer these questions, we surveyed 5,300 youth, 2,600 employers, and 700 postsecondary-education providers across 8 countries that together are home to almost 73 percent of Europe’s 5.6 million jobless youth: France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. We also examined more than 100 programs in 25 countries to provide examples of companies, governments, education providers, and nongovernmental organizations that may be relevant to Europe.

Our research led us to the following answers:

1. While there are more people looking for work, employers in Europe cannot find the skills they need.

Clearly, the lack of availability of jobs in Europe is part of the problem, but it is far from the whole story. In many countries, the number of people employed has actually remained steady, and in some countries, increased, since 2005. A greater number of older people are working longer, and more women with children are choosing to join or remain in the workforce. Across the 15 countries that were members of the EU prior to May 2004, for example, the percentage of people aged 55 to 59 who are in the labor market has jumped 11 percentage points since 2005, while increasing 4 percentage points among women aged 35 to 39. This increase in the participation rate in a demand-constrained environment means greater competition for jobs for younger people, who are disadvantaged by their lack of proven experience. Meanwhile, labor-market regulations that discourage hiring and firing, which are common in Europe, make it even more difficult for youth to step onto the first rung of the employment ladder.

Yet despite this availability of labor, employers are dissatisfied with applicants’ skills: 27 percent reported that they have left a vacancy open in the past year because they could not find anyone with the right skills. One-third said the lack of skills is causing major business problems, in the form of cost, quality, or time. Counterintuitively, employers from countries where youth unemployment is highest reported the greatest problems. So why is it that young people are not getting the skills that employers need? One reason is the failure of employers, education providers, and young people to understand one another. To cite our 2012 report, they operate in “parallel universes.”

In Europe, 74 percent of education providers were confident that their graduates were prepared for work, but only 38 percent of youth and 35 percent of employers agreed. The different players don’t talk to one another and don’t understand one another’s expectations and needs. Only in Germany and the United Kingdom did most employers report that they communicate with education providers at least several times a year. In Portugal, only a third did. And only in Spain did most employers report that their interactions with providers were actually effective.

2. Youth face three significant hurdles.

The education-to-employment (E2E) path can be described as a road with three intersections: enrolling in postsecondary education, building the right skills, and finding a suitable job. The problem is that in Europe there are roadblocks at each of these three points.

When it comes to enrolling in further education, the most significant barrier in Europe is cost. Although university tuition fees are usually highly subsidized in Europe, many students find the cost of living while studying too high to sustain. Also, in a number of countries, nonacademic, vocational courses are not subsidized and can therefore be prohibitively expensive. Students also lack information: except in Germany, less than 25 percent said they received sufficient information on postsecondary courses and careers to guide their decisions. And finally, most of those surveyed said they perceived a social bias against vocational education; less than half of those who wanted to undertake a vocational course actually did so.

At the second intersection, young people are often not learning a sufficient portfolio of general skills while they study, with employers reporting a particular shortage of soft skills such as spoken communication and work ethic. Employers and providers are not working together closely to address this.

At the final intersection, young people find the transition to work difficult. One-third fall into interim jobs after graduating, and many more struggle to find a job at all. Many lack access to career-support services at their postsecondary institution. Many more do not pursue a work placement, in spite of this being a good predictor of how quickly a young person will find a job after his or her studies are completed.

3. The E2E structure is failing for young people and for small businesses.

To refine our understanding of the issue, we divided young people and employers into segments to examine different interventions to achieve better education-to-employment outcomes Specifically, we looked at how much support young people received on their path from education to employment, and the extent of their desire to develop skills that would make them more employable (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1

Few young people have a successful journey to employment.

Only one of our segments, the so-called high achievers, which represent 10 percent of the youth surveyed, achieves a good employment outcome. This group succeeded because the young people in it receive a strong education and good information; they also focus on finding opportunities to build job skills. Another two segments, representing 11 percent of youths surveyed—what we call “coasters” and “meanderers”—receive strong support but are less motivated and end up only moderately satisfied with their job outcomes. The remaining four segments (79 percent) are frustrated by a lack of support and unhappy at their prospects. They exhibit different responses to these circumstances, from fighting for every opportunity they can get (but rarely succeeding) to losing heart and leaving education at the first opportunity.

We based our employer segmentation on the ease with which employers could find new hires and the degree to which they were prepared to invest in training (Exhibit 2). While two of the four segments are basically satisfied with their workforce, they start from very different places. One segment, representing 19 percent of employers, is able to attract strong candidates and invests substantially in training new hires. A high proportion of the companies in this group are large companies with an established market position. The other satisfied segment, representing 26 percent, finds it difficult to attract strong candidates but develops a strong workforce through training and partnerships. Of the two less satisfied segments, one (34 percent) reports moderate satisfaction but tackles the skills problem alone. The other (21 percent) is disproportionately made up of small businesses and is the least satisfied. This group struggles to find people with the right skills yet either does not, or cannot, invest in training.

Exhibit 2

Less than half of employers are satisfied by their workforce’s skill levels.

In contrast to the findings of our global survey, in Europe, small firms were more likely than large ones to report problems in their business due to lack of skills. They also have the greatest problems in identifying and recruiting new hires and are less likely to work with education providers or other employers to tackle their skills problems. This phenomenon is particularly acute in Greece, which has both very high rates of youth unemployment and a high reliance on small businesses as a source of employment. Understanding the mix and concentration of employer and youth segments by country is critical—each segment requires a different set of interventions to reach its potential.

4. There are proven ways to improve the E2E journey.

Europe’s governments, employers, education providers, and families are operating in difficult circumstances, but there are ways to ease the burden on all of these groups.

Innovate with design, course delivery, and financing to make education more affordable and accessible

To reduce the cost of courses, one solution is to break up degree or vocational programs into individual modules that focus on building a particular set of skills while still counting toward a degree or formal qualification. Each of these modules would be short (weeks or months) and self-contained, enabling young people to combine and sequence them in the order that makes most sense for their career aspirations. This model also enables young people to take a break in their studies to work for a period, and then return and pick up where they left off.

To improve financing, governments and private financial institutions can offer low-interest loans to students pursuing courses that have a strong employment record; they can also explore initiatives that allow young people to repay loans in the form of services, such as tutoring younger students. Employers can play a role by promising jobs to young people (following a rigorous recruitment process) and then assuming responsibility for part or all of the costs of education in return for the opportunity to select the most successful graduates, trained with the most relevant skills they need. This latter option is only likely to be successful, however, for employers in sectors that face either a skills scarcity or high employee churn.

Focus young people, employers, and education providers on improving employment readiness

Young people, employers, and providers must change how they think about the E2E process. To make rational decisions, young people need to think more strategically about their futures. This is particularly important in Europe, where students often have to make life-defining decisions about their educational future by age 15—the time when many choose whether to pursue academic or vocational tracks. Students need more and better-quality information about different career paths, and need to be motivated to use it.

Education providers should focus more on what happens to students after they leave school. Specifically, they should track graduates’ employment and their job satisfaction. To improve student prospects, education providers could work more closely with employers to make sure they are offering courses that really help young people prepare for the workplace.

Employers cannot wait for the right applicants to show up at their doorsteps. In the most effective interventions, employers and education providers work closely to design curricula that fit business needs; employers may even participate in teaching, by providing instructors. They might also consider increasing the availability of work placements and opportunities for practical learning. Larger enterprises may be able to go further, by setting up training academies to improve required skills for both themselves and their suppliers.

Build the supporting structures that allow the best interventions to scale up

At a national level in Europe, responsibility and oversight of the E2E highway is split across multiple government departments, resulting in a fragmented and confusing picture. One way to improve this is to create a “system integrator” to gather and share information on the most salient metrics: job forecasts by profession, youth job-placement rates, employer satisfaction with the graduates of different programs, and so on. The system integrator would also identify and share examples of successful programs and work with employers and educators to create sectoral or regional solutions based on these. Technological solutions can also help to compensate for shortages of apprenticeships and other forms of short-term work placements. “Serious games” that mimic the workplace context, for example, are low-cost, low-risk ways for students to receive a personalized learning experience through repeated “play” of the game. While not a full substitute for an actual apprenticeship, this approach offers a substantial step forward in providing the applied skills that employers say young people lack; furthermore, such initiatives can be made available to greater numbers of young people without needing to find more employers to provide work placements.

Involve the European Union

To help the most successful interventions reach the greatest number of young people, the European Union has a critical role to play in three areas:

  • Information. The European Union could develop and share a more comprehensive labor-market platform incorporating the most relevant data to capture employment trends in each sector and region. This would help institutional decision makers, employers, and job seekers make better decisions, for instance, by helping users understand the implications of the data—whether on the courses they should offer as an education provider or the skills gaps they should try to fill as a group of employers within an industry.
  • Mobility. The European Union can improve educational and labor mobility by working to make vocational qualifications transferable across borders, as has already largely been achieved in the university-education process in Bologna.
  • Sharing relevant practices on matching labor-market demand and supply.The European Union is in the best position to take the lead on helping national public-employment services compare their successful interventions, and then disseminate and promote those that are relevant to similar-context countries.

Youth unemployment is a profound challenge to the future of Europe, and both individual countries and the European Union recognize this. Only by reaching across their parallel universes can all parties affected by the crisis of youth unemployment create an education-to-employment system that works more effectively and benefits all.

For more on this research, download the full report, Education to Employment: Getting Europe’s Youth into Work (PDF–7,235KB).

About the authors

Mona Mourshed is a director in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office; Jigar Patel is a principal in the London office; and Katrin Suder is a director in the Berlin office.

RSVP for the upcoming event, “Challenges and Opportunities in the Settlement and Integration of Bhutanese Refugees in the U.S.: An Interaction with Anshu Basnyat”

November 23rd, 2013, 4:00-6:00 PM (RSVP at https://integrationofbhutaneserefugeesintheus.eventbrite.com)

 Join us for a discussion with Anshu Basnyat who runs a mentorship program for Bhutanese Youth being re-settled in the State of Maryland from their refugee camps in Nepal. Anshu will lead the discussion. The discussion will elucidate the ongoing challenges in the settlement and integration of Bhutanese Refugees in the U.S. and the opportunities for collaboration with their communities to help them better integrate into the U.S. society. Anshu will also discuss about the mentorship program she has been offering to Bhutanese youth and would discuss about the potentials for collaboration and involvement in this initiative. Recently, there was an article by a Bhutanese refugee in the New York Times discussing how the refugees situation unfolded in Bhutan and about the ongoing re-settlements into the U.S. and other countries http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/opinion/bhutan-is-no-shangri-la.html

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutanese_refugees 

This event is open to everyone.

Brought to you by

Washington Nepal Forum

http://washingtonnepalforum.wordpress.com/

Time & Date: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, November 23rd, 2013

Event Venue

Le Mirch Restaurant and Lounge

1736 Connecticut Ave NW

Washington, DC 20009

Tel: (202) 629-3577

http://www.lemirch.com

 

Seven Summits women in Washington next week.

http://sevensummitswomen.org/about/ew7sea/

7 Summits Mission

Ladies on Kili. Pic: WFP/Jen Kunz

In May 2008, a team of young Nepali women became the most successful women’s expedition to ever summit Mt Everest. Against all kinds of socio-economic odds, this emerging team succeeded in doing what no one thought possible.

With the first (and arguably most challenging) summit behind us, in our quest to do something that would be meaningful and helpful not just in Nepal but globally, an idea took shape: We would climb, as a team, seven of the highest peaks on seven continent.

Education, empowerment and environment are three keys we believe in. With education we mean real learning, empowerment means ability to stand for oneself in every way and we understand environment as not just the nature around us, it’s who we are.

The team members come from humble backgrounds. Individual stories of our challenge, struggle and success is something that binds us close. To find out about the team member click The Team above.

The journey started with Mt Kosciuszko/Tar Gan Gil in Australia in June 2010. We made it to the summit of Australia on July 2010 and the following month climbed Mt Elbrus, the tallest in Europe. After a long wait, finally on 5th of March, 2013,  we scaled Mt Kilimajaro, rooftop of Africa.

Australia

The team successfully started the mission from Australia in June-July 2010.  We left for Australia on 28th June 2010 and climbed the tallest mountain in Australia, Mt Kosciuszko/Targangil on 7th July 2010.  Nepal Mountaineering Association was the major supporter for this leg of the mission. The trip was also supported by Government of Nepal, The North Face, Nepal Airlines, Veg Climate Alliance, The Crossing Land Education Trust, Outdoor Education Group, Supreme Master TV, ICIMOD, Non-Residential Nepalis and Nepal Tourism Board.

 7th July, 2010 was a perfect weather day with clear blue sky.  Alpine Scientist Ken Green from the national park along with photographer Vonna Keller, cameraperson Nigel Mueke and other supporters joined the climb.  Coordinator Shailee Basnet was interviewed by ABC Southeast radio on the way up. We took a scenic route up the mountain and spent about 45 minutes on the summit.

On 13th July the team presented a statue of Lord Buddha originally handed by the Prime Minister of Nepal Mr Madhav Kumar Nepal to Mr David Holly, Assistant Secretary, South and Central Asia Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The team made a presentation emphasizing the friendly relations between Nepal and Australia and urging the Australian government to consider the impact of climate change in the Himalayas.

On 14th July EW7S team was hosted at Brigitte Muir’s residence in Natimuk, Victoria. She is the first Australian woman to climb Mt Everest and first Australian to climb all seven summits. The team hiked up Mt Arapiles with her next day and met another seven summiteer Steve Bell later in the day. The team got wonderful opportunity to learn from the experiences of the two climbers. Brigitte Muir, David Spratt, co-author of Climate Code Red were the featured speakers at an event  organized in Melbourne.

The team made 18 presentations at various avenues including schools, communities, fundraising dinner and other interactions.  Audiences were mesmerized to see pictures of the Himalayan giants and inspired by the team’s story.

Cameraperson from Supreme Master TV filmed the team right from arrival in Australia till departure. EW7SEA members were also interviewed by ABC Southeast Radio, SBS Radio, Melbourne Chautari, The Herald Sun and were featured in Narooma News, Monaro Post including various online posts. The team also received wide media coverage in Nepal before and after the climb.

Our hosts were amazing and we  kept meeting wonderful Australians along the way. After the trip we like to tell everyone ‘if you want to make friends visit Australia’. Kosciuszko was very important for us because this was a beginning.

Many people told us that this must have been a walk in the park for us. We like to borrow Neil Armstrong’s words and say, ‘It was not a big climb but a giant leap for a team of young women all the way from Nepal to make this happen.’ Thanks to our supporters Australia was a great start!

Russia

Everest Women team successfully climbed Mt Elbrus, the tallest mountain in the European continent on August 29th 2010 at 12:30 pm. The team left for  Russia on 24th August 2010. Nepal Government, The North Face and Non-Residential Nepalis financially supported the climb in Russia. Nepali Embassy in Russia hosted the team during our stay in Moscow.

 We reached Moscow on 24th August and then flew to Mineralny Vody and reached the village of Cheget on 25th August. On 26th August, we went for acclimatization trip to the Ice Camp above village of Treskol, the route used by climbers till about 50 years ago. 7 Summits Club in Russia was the implementing agency. Alexandar Abramov, owner of the club, was the leader whereas Ludmila, club’s director was the assistant leader. Ludmila is the first and only Russian woman to climb all the seven summits. We were really inspired by  her beauty, strength and modesty. The couple were assisted by their manager Tanya. Together they made a great team.

On 27th August, the team headed towards the mountain, took shelter at the barrel and went for acclimatization trip towards Pasthukov Rocks. 28th August was the rest day. The team visited a second world war memorial museum in the Elbrus region. We learnt from the museum’s founder that Elbrus region was a battlefield during the war and also learnt that Tenzing Norgay Sherpa was in the region in the 1960s to climb Elbrus. But bad weather came in his way. Presence of all-women team was a surprise to many guides in the region and we were thus visited and asked many questions about our country and mission by various climbers.

Early morning on 29th August, the team set out at 4:00 am aiming for the summit. The team climbed up the Pastukov Rocks, traversed across the saddle on the classic route and all nine members made it to the summit at 12:30 pm. The weather was very clear with hardly any wind or snow. However, the summit was windy.

On our descent, we learnt that summer was getting longer in the Elbrus region. As a result, there were more streams originating from the mountain than in the past, as observed by our guides.

The team spent five days in Moscow after the climb. Nepalis in Moscow took the team for sight-seeing. We had interaction with Nari Nikunja in Russia over lunch. Nari Nikunja is led under the presidency of Dr Samata Prasad. Nepalese Students Association PFUR in Moscow organized an interaction program on 4th September where His Excellency Surya Kiran Gurung was the chief guest and other distinguished guests including Mr Jiba Lamichhane, Dr Samata Prasad were present. The team made a presentation about its mission and received great response.

We received warm hospitality from both the Russian friends in the 7 Summits Club and from Nepalis in Russia. The team was provided special support by the Nepali Embassy in Moscow and His Excellency ambassador and his family. Most importantly, all members of the team were successful in climbing Mt Elbrus, the third mountain in our quest of climbing the tallest mountain in each continent and spread the message of the mission.