In late August, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a new rule concerning how long three classifications of nonimmigrants—F (academic student), J (exchange visitor), and I (representatives of foreign media)—can legally stay in the U.S. This proposed change has potentially harmful implications for international students attending universities in the U.S. The official proposal can be found on the federal registrar here.
Since 1978, international students have been admitted to the country for a period known as “duration of status” (D/S). This has allowed nonimmigrants on F visas to stay in the U.S. for as long as they are making progress towards their academic and/or research objectives (e.g., working toward their degree). For example, if an international student intended to finish their doctoral studies in five years but ended up needing six, the D/S system would allow them the flexibility to stay in the U.S. one additional year to finish their degree program.
Now, the Trump Administration has proposed eliminating D/S and replacing it with a fixed period of stay. Under this new rule, international students would be admitted to the U.S. until a certain date, i.e., the program end date noted on their immigration form. Further, that date cannot be more than four years out from their arrival in the U.S. Students would have the opportunity to apply for an extension of stay from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but the decision-making criteria are not known at this time. During the first Trump Administration, DHS proposed this same rule change but was unsuccessful in implementing it.
To justify the change, the Administration has argued that the D/S system has been abused, claiming that a large number of students overstay their status, becoming “forever” students, and that limiting the number of international students visiting the country will allow DHS to better monitor them. In announcing the proposed rule, DHS did not provide evidence to support these claims. In any case, the harmful consequences of the rule may outweigh any potential benefits. For example, many graduate programs and even some undergraduate programs require more than four years of study—PhD programs in particular take at least five years, on average—practically ensuring a consistent flood of applications for extensions under the new rule. This could significantly slow down the processing of requests and disrupt students’ educations.
If the proposed rule does go into effect—DHS is currently reviewing public comments—U.S. colleges and universities should expect a number of impacts and be prepared for the delays and declining enrollments that are likely to come. FABBS will continue to monitor this proposal in the coming weeks. Several scientific societies, education organizations, and policy organizations have come together to express their concerns via a joint comment submitted to DHS.
