For decades, international students in the United States relied on “duration of status,” the simple promise that as long as they maintained normal progress in school, they could stay. The “duration of status” rules allowed them to reside in the United States for the length of their educational program in addition to any authorized practical training. Moreover, students did not need to apply for an extension of stay or leave and re-enter the country if their studies ran longer than expected. Their only requirement was a legal student status. That flexibility may soon disappear, though.
F-1 visa holders are typically international students who study full-time at a U.S. academic institution, while J-1 visa holders are those who participate in educational or cultural exchange programs. On Aug. 28, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule that would replace open-ended duration of status with fixed admission dates for F-1 and J-1 visa holders. Instead of staying until their program ends, students would be admitted for no longer than four years, with a shortened 30-day grace period. To extend, they would need to apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), submitting fees, biometrics and possibly facing interviews.
DHS frames the change as a matter of oversight. Officials argue that the rule would reduce fraud and strengthen national security. But higher education advocates see a different picture. According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the proposal “would impose burdensome requirements on students and scholars while undermining U.S. competitiveness in international education.”
The proposal’s reach is broad. English language learners would be capped at 24 months of study, graduate students would be barred from switching programs midstream and F-1 students would no longer be able enroll in another program at the same or lower level after finishing one.
Supporters of the proposal argue that accountability is necessary, especially in a system with millions of nonimmigrant students and scholars. At the same time, some observers note the potential impacts on international enrollment and whether stricter control is the answer. International students contributed more than $41 billion to the U.S. economy in 2018, according to NAFSA, and universities depend on their presence to strengthen research and diversify perspectives. Changes to the policy could influence students’ decisions to study in the United States because countries like Canada, the United Kingdom or Australia offer alternative immigration pathways.
According to NAFSA, “replacing duration of status with fixed deadlines introduces risks for students and institutions alike. It could make U.S. study and research less predictable and less attractive.”
For now, the proposal remains just that: a proposal. DHS is accepting public comments until Sept. 29. However, this proposal has sparked conversation about the roles of government oversight and openness in higher education. For Case Western Reserve University students and faculty, the question is not only how to comply, but also how immigration law may soon influence the pace of education.