An omission of fact is a misrepresentation under § 668.71 if a reasonable person would have considered the omitted information in making a decision to enroll or continue attendance at the institution. An omission of fact includes, but is not limited to, the concealment, suppression, or absence of material information or statement concerning—
(a) The entity that is actually providing the educational instruction, or implementing the institution's recruitment, admissions, or enrollment process;
(b) The availability of enrollment openings in the student's desired program;
(c) The factors that would prevent an applicant from meeting the legal or other requirements to be employed in the field for which the training is provided, for reasons such as prior criminal record or preexisting medical conditions;
(d) The factors that would prevent an applicant from meeting the legal or other requirements to be employed, licensed, or certified in the field for which the training is provided because the academic, professional, or occupational degree or credential that the institution will confer upon completion of the course of study has not been authorized by the appropriate State educational or licensure agency, or requires specialized accreditation that the institution does not have; or,
(e) The nature of the institution's educational programs, the institution's financial charges, or the employability of the institution's graduates as defined in § 668.72-74.
Notes of Decisions
Ass'n of Private Sector Colleges & Universities v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “” 34 C.F.R. § 668.75 (b) (2010). The regulations provided in the alternative that “[i]f the designated department official finds that the complaint or allegation is a substantial misrepresentation,” then he or she initiates a formal action against the institution, id.”
Career Coll. Ass'n v. Duncan, 796 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2011).
· cites it 2× “However, as APSCU notes, the prior regulations also specified that if “the misrepresentation is minor and can be readily corrected, the designated department official informs the institution and endeavors to obtain an informal, voluntary correction,” 34 C.F.R. § 668.75 (b)…”
L'ggrke v. Benkula, 966 F.2d 1346 (10th Cir. 1992).
“34 C.F.R. § 668.75 (a), (c)(1). The Secretary, a department official, or an administrative law judge, following a hearing, may require an institution to take reasonable and appropriate corrective action to remedy a violation of applicable laws or regulations should one be found.”
Career Coll. Ass'n v. Duncan (D.D.C. 2011).
· cites it 2× “4 See 34 C.F.R. § 668.75 (b) (effective until July 1, 2011) (providing that if “the misrepresentation is minor and can be readily corrected, the designated department official informs the institution and endeavors to obtain an informal, voluntary correction”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.