I have no argument with the requirement made of an alien to enter the US under the appropriate nonimmigrant academic or vocational visa for a non-trivial "course of study." The language used in the INA at 101(15)(B) states clearly that a person must not be coming to the US under a B-class visa for the purpose of undertaking a course of study and the memorandum references 8 CFR 248.1(c) which now requires anyone on a B visa to change status to an M- or F-class visa, as appropriate, prior to beginning a "course of study."
The problem lies in the explicit interpretation given to "full course of study" as mentioned in the above post. While 8 CFR 248.1(c) does not discriminate between a "full course of study" and "course of study" and therefore applies generally to all non-trivial courses, the INA at 101(15)(M) explicitly states "full course of study" and a definition of it is provided for in 214.2(m)(9)(iii).
1. An alien intending to embark on any non-trivial "course of study" must do so under an M- or F- visa.
2. An M- or F- visa requires the alien to engage in a "full course of study."
3. A "full course of study" precludes short courses such as a night qualification.
Why doesn't the DOJ seek an amendment of the wording of 214.2(m)(9)(iii) to reduce the threshold minimum studying hours to permit a short course such as a night qualification to fall within the definition of a "full course of study" as mandated by the INA? None of that changes the fact that an M- or F-class visa is required for a short course but the "terms and conditions" of an M-class visa do not allow for them.