[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44976-45131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-14439]
[[Page 44975]]
Vol. 91
Friday,
No. 136
July 17, 2026
Part II
Department of Homeland Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 CFR Parts 214, 248, and 274a
Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay
Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and
Representatives of Foreign Information Media; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 44976]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
8 CFR Parts 214, 248, and 274a
[DHS Docket No. ICEB-2025-0001]
RIN 1653-AA95
Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of
Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors,
and Representatives of Foreign Information Media
AGENCY: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Department
of Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its
regulations to change the admission period in the F, J, and I
classifications from duration of status to an admission for a fixed
time period, and additional changes to admission and extension
requirements. This final rule will provide additional protections and
oversight of these nonimmigrant categories and will allow DHS to better
evaluate whether these nonimmigrants are maintaining status while
temporarily in the United States. This final rule provides amendments
to the proposed rule covering this topic that was published in the
Federal Register on August 28, 2025.
DATES: This rule has been classified as a major rule subject to
congressional review. The effective date is September 15, 2026.
However, at the conclusion of the congressional review, if the
effective date has been changed, DHS will publish a document in the
Federal Register to establish the actual effective date or to terminate
the rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Principal Legal Advisor,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland
Security, 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536-5901. Telephone 202-
732-6960 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACGME Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education
ADIS Arrival and Departure Information System
ARO Alternative Responsible Officer
AUD Admit Until Date
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPT Curricular Practical Training
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
D/S Duration of Status
DoS U.S. Department of State
DSO Designated School Official
EAD Employment Authorization Document
ECFMG Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates
ED U.S. Department of Education
ELT English language training
EOS Extension of Stay
ESL English as a second language
FY Fiscal year
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996
INA Immigration and Nationality Act
INS U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NIH National Institutes of Health
OPT Optional Practical Training
PDSO Principal Designated School Officials
POE Port of Entry
PRC People's Republic of China
RFE Request for Evidence
RO Responsible Officer
SAR Special Administrative Region
SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program
SSR Special Student Relief
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
USA PATRIOT Act Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act
of 2001
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
Studying and participating in exchange visitor and academic
programs in the United States offers aliens access to world-renowned,
individualized instructional and educational programs. Similarly, the
United States allows foreign news and media members access to the
United States as part of their foreign employment. Millions of aliens
have come to the United States on a temporary basis in the F (academic
student),\1\ J (exchange visitor),\2\ and I (representatives of foreign
information media) \3\ nonimmigrant classifications.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 101(a)(15)(F), 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F).
\2\ See INA 101(a)(15)(J), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J).
\3\ See INA 101(a)(15)(I), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(I).
\4\ See Office of Homeland Security Statistics, Yearbook of
Immigration Statistics-Yearbook 2023, Table 25, Nonimmigrant
Admissions by Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 2014 to 2023 (last
updated July 31, 2025), https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook-immigration-statistics/yearbook-2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike aliens in most nonimmigrant classifications who are admitted
until a specific departure date, F, J, and I (except for some I
nonimmigrants from the People's Republic of China (PRC)) nonimmigrants
are admitted into the United States for an unspecified period of time
to engage in activities authorized under their respective nonimmigrant
classifications. This unspecified period of time is referred to as
``duration of status'' (D/S). D/S for F academic students is generally
the time during which a student is pursuing a full course of study at
an educational institution approved by DHS, or engaging in authorized
practical training following completion of studies, plus authorized
time to depart the country.\5\ D/S for J exchange visitors is the time
during which an exchange visitor is participating in an authorized
program, plus authorized time to depart the country.\6\ D/S for I
representatives of foreign information media is the duration of their
foreign employment duties in the United States.\7\ For dependents of
principal F, J, or I nonimmigrants, D/S generally corresponds with the
principal's period of admission so long as the dependents are also
complying with the requirements of their particular classifications.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Statutory and regulatory requirements restrict the duration
of study for an alien who is admitted in F-1 status to attend a
public high school to an aggregate of 12 months of study at any
public high school(s). See INA 214(m), 8 U.S.C. 1184(m); see also 8
CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i) (2025).
\6\ See 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii) (2025) (explaining the initial
admission period) and 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv) (2025) (explaining that
extensions of stay can be obtained with a new Form DS-2019). See
also 22 CFR 62.43 (permitting responsible officers to extend J
nonimmigrant's program beyond the original DS-2019 end date
according to length permitted for the specific program category).
\7\ 8 CFR 214.2(i) (2025).
\8\ See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(3) (2025), (f)(5)(vi)(D) (2025)
(discussing F-2 period of authorized admission); 214.2(j)(1)(ii)
(2025), (j)(1)(iv) (2025) (discussing J-2 authorized period of
admission); INA 101(a)(15)(I), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(I); 22 CFR
41.52(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since D/S was first introduced in 1978 for F nonimmigrants and in
1985 for J and I nonimmigrants,\9\ the number of F, J, and I
nonimmigrants admitted each year into the United States has
significantly increased.\10\ In fiscal year (FY)2024 alone, there were
over 1.8
[[Page 44977]]
million admissions in F status, a dramatic rise from when the legacy
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) first shifted to D/S
admission in 1979 and more than an 11 percent increase since FY
2023.\11\ For example, in the 1980-81 school year, there were
approximately 260,000 admissions in F status.\12\ Similar growth in the
J nonimmigrant population has also occurred over the past decades. In
FY 2024, there were over 500,000 admissions in J status, up over 300
percent from the 141,213 J admissions into the United States in 1985
and up over 7 percent since FY 2023.\13\ Finally, there were 37,330
admissions for I nonimmigrant foreign media representatives in the
United States in FY 2024, over double the 16,753 admissions into the
U.S. in 1985 and a nearly 15 percent increase from the prior fiscal
year.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Admission of Nonimmigrant Students for Duration of
Status, 43 FR 54618 (Nov. 22, 1978) and Nonimmigrant Classes;
Admission Period and Extensions of Stay, 50 FR 42006 (Oct. 17,
1985).
\10\ In 1985, when D/S was introduced for I and J nonimmigrants,
there were 16,753 admissions in I status, 141,213 admissions in J
status, and 251,234 admissions in F status. DOJ, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, 1997 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (Oct. 1999), https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/Yearbook_Immigration_Statistics_1997.pdf.
\11\ In FY 2024, there were 1,816,480 admissions in F-1 status
and 63,510 in F-2 status. See DHS Off. of Homeland Sec. Stat., Legal
Immig. and Adjustment of Status Report Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 4,
tbl.4B, https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2025_0624_ohss_legal-immigration-adjustment-of-status-fy-2024q4_0.xlsx. Compare this to FY 2023, when there were 1,625,740
admissions in F-1 status and 61,910 in F-2 status. See DHS Off. of
Homeland Sec. Stat., Legal Immig. and Adjustment of Status Report
Fiscal Year 2023, Quarter 4, tbl.4B, https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024_0507_ohss_legal-immigration-adjustment-of-status-fy-2023q4.xlsx.
\12\ In the 1980-81 school year, 312,000 nonimmigrant students
were admitted into the United States. Approximately 83 percent of
the nonimmigrant students admitted into the United States during the
1980-81 school year were in F status. Therefore, approximately
258,960 nonimmigrant students in F status were admitted into the
United States in the 1980-81 school year. See U.S. Gov't
Accountability Off (GAO)., Controls Over Foreign Students in U.S.
Postsecondary Institutions Are Still Ineffective; Proposed
Legislation and Regulations May Correct Problems (Mar. 10, 1983),
https://www.gao.gov/assets/hrd-83-27.pdf.
\13\ See FY 2024, Quarter 4, tbl.4B, supra note 11, sum of J-1
514,170 and J-2 68,010. See also DHS FY 2023, Quarter 4, tbl.4B,
supra note 11, sum of J-1 481,280 and J-2 62,000.
\14\ See FY 2024, Quarter 4, tbl.4B, supra note 11. See also DHS
FY 2023, Quarter 4, tbl.4B, supra note 11, sum of I nonimmigrants
32,470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The significant increase in the volume of F academic students, J
exchange visitors, and I representatives of information media under D/S
poses a challenge to DHS's ability to monitor and oversee these
nonimmigrants while they are in the United States. During the length of
their stay for D/S, a period of admission without a specified end date,
these nonimmigrants are not required to have direct interaction with
DHS, except for a few limited instances, such as when applying for
employment authorization for optional practical training (OPT), or for
reinstatement if they have failed to maintain status. Admission for D/
S, in general, does not afford immigration officers enough
predetermined opportunities to directly verify that aliens granted such
nonimmigrant statuses are engaging only in those activities their
respective classifications authorize while they are in the United
States. In turn, this has undermined DHS's ability to effectively
enforce compliance with the statutory inadmissibility grounds related
to unlawful presence and has created incentives for fraud and abuse.
For F and J visa holders, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
specifically states that aliens must have a residence in a foreign
country which they have no intention of abandoning and seek to enter
the United States temporarily,\15\ yet, DHS has many examples of
students and exchange visitors staying for decades in their student or
exchange visitor status.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(F) and (J); 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)
and (J).
\16\ DHS has identified over 2,100 aliens who first entered as
F-1 students between 2000 and 2010 and remain in active F-1 status
as of Apr. 6, 2025. See Student Exchange Visitor Program analysis of
data in the Student Exchange Visitor Information System and valid as
of Apr. 6, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The events of 9/11 highlighted the potential for abuse of the
student visa. In the wake of 9/11, a Homeland Security Presidential
Directive titled, Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies
directed, among other things, that a program be developed to track the
status of foreign students. It also mandated that the government
develop guidelines that may include control mechanisms such as limited
duration of student status.\17\ The 9/11 Commission reiterated the need
to track foreign students and place tighter controls on student
visas.\18\ From these mandates and the statutory authorities described
below, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) was created, and
the electronic Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)
was implemented. SEVIS is a DHS computer system that stores and
processes information about foreign students and exchange visitors in
the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Homeland Sec. Presidential Directive 2, Combating
Terrorism Through Immig. Policies (Oct. 29, 2001) (HSPD-2), https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/10/text/20011030-2.html.
\18\ Kean, T.H. & Hamilton, L.H., The 9/11 Commission report:
final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon
the United States, New York: Norton, at 81, 187 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVIS ensures government agencies have essential data related to
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors to preserve national
security. SEVIS also implements Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law
104-208 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1372), which requires DHS to collect
current information from nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors
continually during their stay in the United States. In addition,
section 416 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of
2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56 (amending IIRIRA sec. 641),
mandated full implementation and expansion of SEVIS.
Given these mandates and concerns, DHS believes that the admission
of F, J, and I nonimmigrants for D/S is not appropriate. The final rule
replaces the D/S framework for F, J, and I nonimmigrants with a return
to an admission period with a specific date upon which an authorized
stay ends. Nonimmigrants who would like to stay in the United States
beyond their fixed period of admission will need to apply directly to
DHS for an extension of stay (EOS) \19\ or gain readmission by
traveling abroad and re-entering the United States. DHS anticipates
that many F, J, and I nonimmigrants will be able to complete their
respective activities within their period of admission. However, those
who are unable will generally be able to request an extension of their
period of admission from an immigration officer. DHS believes that this
process will help to mitigate risks posed by aliens who seek to exploit
these programs and live in the United States on a non-temporary basis
in contradiction with the underlying statutory language that applies to
their nonimmigrant status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See generally 8 CFR 214.1(c) (setting forth the general EOS
requirements applicable to most other nonimmigrants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacing admissions for D/S with admissions for a fixed time
period of authorized stay is consistent with most other nonimmigrant
categories.\20\ It will
[[Page 44978]]
provide additional protections and oversight of these nonimmigrant
categories and will allow DHS to better evaluate whether these
nonimmigrants are maintaining status while temporarily in the United
States. DHS does not believe such a requirement will place an undue
burden on F, J, and I nonimmigrants. Rather, providing F, J, and I
nonimmigrants a fixed time period of authorized stay that will require
them to apply to extend their stay, change their nonimmigrant status,
or otherwise obtain authorization to remain in the United States (e.g.,
adjustment of status) by the end of this specific admission period is
consistent with requirements applicable to most other nonimmigrant
classifications and consistent with the practices for F-1 students
prior to 1979.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For example, see 8 CFR 214.2(a)(1) (setting forth a period
of admission for the A-3 nonimmigrant classification); (b)(1)
(period of admission for aliens admitted under the B nonimmigrant
classification); (c)(3) (period of admission for aliens in transit
through the United States); (e)(19) (periods of admission for most E
nonimmigrants); (g)(1) (period of admission for the G-5 nonimmigrant
classification); (h)(5)(viii) (9)(iii) and (13) (various periods of
admission and maximum periods of stay for the H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, and
H-3 nonimmigrant classification); (k)(8) (period of admission for
the K-3 and K-4 nonimmigrant classification); (l)(11)-(12) (periods
of admission and maximum periods of stay for the L nonimmigrant
classification); (m)(5), (10) (period of stay for the M nonimmigrant
classification); (n)(3) (period of admission for certain parents and
children eligible for admission as special immigrants under section
101(a)(27)(I)); (o)(6)(iii) and (10) (period of admission for the O
nonimmigrant classification); (p)(8)(iii) and (12) (period of
admission for the P nonimmigrant classification); (q)(2) (period of
admission for the Q nonimmigrant classification); (r)(6) (period of
admission for the R nonimmigrant classification); (s)(1)(ii) (period
of admission for the NATO-7 nonimmigrant classification); (t)(5)(ii)
(period of admission for the S nonimmigrant classification); and
(w)(13) and (16) (period of admission for the CW-1 nonimmigrant
classification).
\21\ See Special Requirements for Admission, Extension, and
Maintenance of Status, 38 FR 35425 (Dec. 28, 1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These changes will ensure that DHS has an effective mechanism to
periodically and directly assess whether these nonimmigrants are
complying with the conditions of their classifications and U.S.
immigration laws, and to obtain timely and accurate information about
the activities these aliens have engaged in and plan to engage in
during their temporary stay in the United States. If immigration
officers discover a nonimmigrant in one of these classifications has
overstayed or otherwise violated his or her status, the alien will
accrue unlawful presence for purposes of unlawful presence-related
statutory grounds of inadmissibility under the INA. Unlawful presence
in the United States may result in an alien becoming inadmissible upon
departing the United States.\22\ As a result of this inadmissibility,
the alien may become ineligible for a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa,
admission to the United States, or benefits for which admissibility is
required, such as adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent
resident.\23\ This will encourage aliens to maintain lawful status and
reduce instances in which F, J, and I nonimmigrants unlawfully remain
in the United States after their program, practical training, or
activities or assignments consistent with the I classification end. DHS
believes this greater oversight will deter F, J, or I nonimmigrants
from engaging in fraud and abuse and will strengthen the integrity of
these nonimmigrant classifications while enhancing national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See INA 212(a); 8 U.S.C. 1182(a).
\23\ See INA 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a); INA 245(a); 8 U.S.C.
1255(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS believes that the provisions of each new regulatory amendment
function independently of other provisions. However, to protect DHS's
goals for this rule, DHS added regulatory text stating that the
provisions are severable so that, if necessary, the regulations may
continue to function even if a provision is rendered inoperable.
B. Public Participation--Overview of Comments
On August 28, 2025, DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM), Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension
of Stay (EOS) Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange
Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media (90 FR
42070). The public was given 32 days to comment on the proposed rule
and 60 days to comment on the information collections described in the
Paperwork Reduction Act section of the NPRM. DHS received close to
22,000 public comments. To see comments go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter this rulemaking's eDocket number: DHS
Docket No. ICEB-2025-0001 in the ``Search'' box.
C. Summary of Changes
Following careful consideration of public comments received, DHS
has made several changes to the regulatory text proposed in the
NPRM.\24\ However, most of the changes proposed in the NPRM have been
adopted. A summary of the changes as compared to the NPRM is outlined
in section V.A. below. As discussed in detail elsewhere in this
preamble, the changes this final rule makes to the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an
Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students,
Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media,
90 FR 42070 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend 8 CFR 214.1, Requirements for admission, extension,
and maintenance of status, by:
[cir] Striking all references to D/S for F, J, and I nonimmigrants;
[cir] Describing requirements for F and J nonimmigrants seeking
admission, including after travel abroad and those approved for OPT and
academic training;
[cir] Updating the cross reference and clarifying the standards for
admission in the automatic extension visa validity provisions that
cover F and J nonimmigrants applying at a Port of Entry (POE) after an
absence not exceeding 30 days solely in a contiguous territory or
adjacent islands;
[cir] Outlining the process for EOS applications for F, J, and I
nonimmigrants;
[cir] Providing a short-term reprieve from filing for EOS during
the first 6 months after the rule takes effect if applying for
employment authorization for either post-completion OPT or STEM OPT;
[cir] Specifying the effect of departure while an F, J, or I
nonimmigrant's application for an EOS in F, J, or I nonimmigrant status
and/or employment authorization (and an associated employment
authorization document (EAD)) is pending;
[cir] Providing procedures specific to the transition from D/S to
admission for a fixed time period of authorized stay for F, J, and I
nonimmigrants;
[cir] Replacing references to specific form names and numbers with
general language, to account for future changes to form names and
numbers; and
[cir] Codifying that an F-1 student who has timely filed an EOS
application, will be authorized to continue pursuing a full course of
study after the expiration of the admission period until USCIS
adjudicates the EOS application.
Amend 8 CFR 214.2, Special requirements for admission,
extension, and maintenance of status, by:
[cir] Setting the authorized admission and extension periods for F
and J nonimmigrants up to the program length, not to exceed a 4-year
period;
[cir] For F-1 students changing educational objectives or
transferring to an SEVP-certified school, requiring that the student
complete his or her first academic year of a program of study at the
school that initially issued his or her Form I-20 or successor form,
unless an exception is authorized by SEVP;
[cir] Prohibiting F-1 students at the graduate education level or
above from changing educational objectives at any point during a
program of study;
[cir] Prohibiting F-1 students at the graduate education level or
above from transferring at any point during their program of study,
unless an exception is authorized by SEVP for extenuating
circumstances;
[cir] Outlining procedures and requirements for F-1 nonimmigrants
who change educational objectives while in F-1 status;
[[Page 44979]]
[cir] Requiring any nonimmigrant who has completed a program at one
educational level to only be allowed to begin another program at a
higher educational level as an F-1 student and prohibiting a change to
the same or a lower educational level while an F-1 student;
[cir] Providing DHS the ability to delay implementation of the
prohibition on changing schools, educational objectives, and levels if
needed;
[cir] Clarifying the circumstances under which a continuing F-1
student may be granted an EOS;
[cir] Decreasing the period allowed for F-1 nonimmigrants to
prepare to depart from the United States after completion of a course
of study or an authorized period of post-completion practical training
from 60 to 30 days;
[cir] Requiring that if an F-1 student ends study or training
early, the student and eligible dependents must depart the U.S. or take
action to maintain lawful status within 30 days of the end date;
[cir] Providing for collection of biometric information in
conjunction with an EOS application for F, J, and I nonimmigrants as
may be required by 8 CFR 103.16;
[cir] Limiting language training students to an aggregate 24-month
period of stay, including breaks and an annual vacation;
[cir] Providing that a delay in completing one's program by the
program end date specified on the Form I-20, which includes but is not
limited to delays caused by academic probation or suspension or a
student's repeated inability or unwillingness to complete his or her
course of study, is generally an unacceptable reason for program
extensions for F nonimmigrants;
[cir] Allowing F nonimmigrants whose timely filed EOS applications
remain pending after their admission period has expired to receive an
auto-extension of their current authorization for on-campus and off-
campus employment based on severe economic hardship resulting from
emergent circumstances under existing 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v). The length
of the auto-extension of employment authorization will be up to 240
days or the end date of the Federal Register notice announcing the
suspension of certain regulatory requirements, whichever is earlier;
[cir] Replacing D/S for I nonimmigrants with admission for a fixed
time period until they complete the activities or assignments
consistent with the I classification, not to exceed 240 days (with the
exception of some I nonimmigrants from the PRC), with an EOS available
for I nonimmigrants who can meet specified EOS requirements;
[cir] Codifying the definition of a foreign media organization for
I nonimmigrant status, consistent with long-standing U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Department of State (DoS)
practice;
[cir] Updating the evidence an alien must submit to demonstrate
eligibility for the I nonimmigrant classification;
[cir] Clarifying that J-1 nonimmigrants who are employment
authorized with a specific employer incident to status continue to be
authorized for such employment for up to 240 days under the existing
regulatory provision at 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20) if their status expires
while their timely filed EOS application is pending, whereas J-2
dependents, who must apply for employment authorization as evidenced by
an EAD, do not have the benefit of continued work authorization once
the EAD expires;
[cir] Providing a temporary reprieve for those J-1s whose D/S
status expires shortly after the rule takes effect by allowing them to
apply for EOS and continue to work for the duration of the time on
their new Form DS-2019 regardless of how long the EOS application takes
to adjudicate;
[cir] Requiring that if the program end date is shortened, the J-1
exchange visitor and any J-2 accompanying dependents must leave the
United States within 30 days from the new program end date or otherwise
seek to maintain lawful status in that 30-day period;
[cir] Providing the responsibilities of the responsible officer
(RO) when submitting late requests for extension of current program end
date for exchange visitors;
[cir] Clarifying that I nonimmigrants are authorized to continue
working in the United States for their foreign employer, under 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20), for up to 240 days (with the exception of I
nonimmigrants from the PRC who may continue working for up to 90 days)
while their timely filed EOS application is pending;
[cir] Striking all references to ``duration of status'' and/or
``duration of employment'' for the F, J, and I nonimmigrant
classifications; and
[cir] Including a severability clause. In the event that any
provision of this rule is not implemented for whatever reason, the
remaining provisions can be implemented in accordance with the stated
purposes of this rule.
[cir] Amending 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(E) to limit the ability to
delay or suspend the implementation of 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A) through
(C) for a period of two years from the effective date of the rule since
this provision is not needed indefinitely.
Amend 8 CFR 248.1, Eligibility, by:
[cir] Establishing requirements to determine the period of stay for
F or J nonimmigrants whose change of status application was approved
before the final rule's effective date and who depart the United
States, then seek admission after the final rule's effective date; and
[cir] Codifying the long-standing policy under which DHS deems
abandoned an application to change to another nonimmigrant status,
including F or J status, if the alien who timely filed the application
departs the United States while the application is pending.
Amend 8 CFR 274a.12, Classes of aliens authorized to
accept employment, by updating the employment authorization provisions
to incorporate the revisions in 8 CFR 214.2.
D. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
Currently, aliens in the F (academic student), J (exchange
visitor), and most I (representatives of foreign information media)
nonimmigrant classifications are admitted to the United States under
the D/S framework. However, this framework poses a challenge to DHS's
ability to efficiently monitor and oversee these nonimmigrants to
assess whether these nonimmigrants are complying with the terms and
conditions of their status and whether they present national security
concerns. To address these vulnerabilities, DHS is replacing D/S with
an admission for a fixed time period for F, J, and I nonimmigrants.
Admitting aliens in the F, J, and I classifications for a fixed period
of time will require all F, J, and I nonimmigrants who wish to remain
in the United States beyond their specific authorized admission period
to apply for authorization to extend their stay with USCIS if in the
United States, thus requiring periodic assessments by DHS in order for
the alien to remain in the United States for a longer period. This
change will impose incremental costs on F, J, and I nonimmigrants as
well as schools and exchange visitor program sponsors but will in turn
protect the integrity of the F, J, and I programs by having immigration
officers evaluate and assess the appropriate length of stay for these
nonimmigrants.
The period of analysis for the rule covered 10 years and assumed
the rule would go into effect in 2026. Therefore, the analysis period
goes from 2027 through 2036. This analysis estimates the annualized
value of future costs using two discount rates: 3 percent and 7
percent. In Circular A-4, OMB recommends that a three percent
[[Page 44980]]
discount rate be used when a regulation affects private consumption,
and a seven percent discount rate be used in evaluating a regulation
that will mainly displace or alter the use of capital in the private
sector. The discount rate accounts for how benefits or costs that occur
sooner are more valuable. The rule will have an annualized cost ranging
from $443.1 million to $448.6 million (with 3 and 7 percent discount
rates, respectively). When considering U.S. parties only, annual costs
range from $119.9 million to $125.1 million (with 3- and 7-percent
discount rates, respectively).
III. Background and Purpose
A. Legal Authority
The authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary)
to implement the regulatory amendments in this rule can be found in
various provisions of the immigration laws. Section 102 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (HSA) (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135), 6 U.S.C.
112, and section 103(a)(1) and (3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103 (a)(1),
(3), charge the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of
the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States. Section
214(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a), gives the Secretary the authority
to prescribe, by regulation, the time and conditions of admission of
any alien as a nonimmigrant, including F, J, and I nonimmigrant aliens.
See also 6 U.S.C. 271(a)(3), (b) (describing certain USCIS functions
and authorities, including USCIS's authority to establish national
immigration services policies and priorities and adjudicate benefits
applications) and 6 U.S.C. 252(a)(4) (describing the authority of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to collect information
relating to foreign students and exchange program participants and to
use such information to carry out its enforcement functions).
Section 248 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1258, permits DHS to allow certain
nonimmigrants to change their status from one nonimmigrant status to
another nonimmigrant status, with certain exceptions, as long as they
continue to maintain their current nonimmigrant status and are not
inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(B)(i). Similar to extensions of stay, change of status
adjudications are discretionary determinations.\25\ Also, section 274A
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, governs the employment of aliens who are
authorized to be employed in the United States by statute or in the
discretion of the Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See INA 248(a), 8 U.S.C. 1258(a); 8 CFR 248.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the INA establishes who may be admitted as F, J, or I
nonimmigrants. Specifically, section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i), established the F nonimmigrant classification
for, among others, bona fide students qualified to pursue a full course
of study who wish to enter the United States temporarily and solely for
the purpose of pursuing a full course of study at an academic or
language training school certified by the SEVP, as well as for the
spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21 of such aliens. See
also INA 214(m), 8 U.S.C. 1184(m) (limiting the admission of
nonimmigrants for certain aliens who intend to study at public
elementary and secondary schools).
Section 101(a)(15)(J) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J),
established the J nonimmigrant classification for aliens who wish to
come to the United States temporarily and have no intention of
abandoning their residence in a foreign country, to participate in
exchange visitor programs designated by the DoS, as well as for the
spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21 of such aliens in
certain J-1 categories.
Section 101(a)(15)(I) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(I),
established, upon a basis of reciprocity, the I nonimmigrant
classification for bona fide representatives of foreign information
media (such as press, radio, film, print) seeking to enter the United
States to engage in such vocation, as well as for the spouses and
children of such aliens.
Within DHS, SEVP is administered by ICE. SEVP is authorized to
administer the program to collect information related to nonimmigrant
students and exchange visitors under various statutory authorities.
Section 641 of IIRIRA authorizes the creation of a program to collect
current and ongoing information provided by schools and exchange
visitor programs regarding F and J nonimmigrants during the course of
their stays in the United States, using electronic reporting technology
where practicable. Consistent with this statutory authority, DHS
manages these programs pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-2 (HSPD-2), Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies
(Oct. 29, 2001), as amended, (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-110HPRT39618/pdf/CPRT-110HPRT39618.pdf), and section 502 of the
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Public Law
107-173, 116 Stat. 543, 563 (May 14, 2002) (EBSVERA). HSPD-2 requires
the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct periodic, ongoing reviews
of institutions certified to accept F nonimmigrants, and to include
checks for compliance with recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Section 502 of EBSVERA directs the Secretary to review the compliance
with recordkeeping and reporting requirements under 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F) and 1372 of all schools approved for attendance by F
students within 2 years of enactment, and every 2 years thereafter.
B. Background
1. F Classification
Section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i),
permits aliens who are bona fide students to temporarily be admitted to
the United States solely for the purpose for pursuing a full course of
study at an established college, university, seminary, conservatory,
academic high school, elementary school, or other academic language
training program. Principal applicants are categorized as F-1
nonimmigrants and their spouses and children who may accompany or
follow to join as F-2 dependents.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ INA 101(a)(15)(F)(i)-(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i)-(ii);
8 CFR 214.2(f)(3). DHS notes the terms ``F-1 nonimmigrant'' and ``F-
1 student'' are used throughout this final rule and the regulatory
text. These terms are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1973 to 1979, F students were admitted for one year and could
be granted an EOS in increments of up to 12 months if they established
that they were maintaining status.\27\ However, on July 26, 1978, given
the large number of nonimmigrant students in the United States at the
time and the need to continually process their EOS applications, legacy
INS proposed amending the regulations to permit F-1 students to be
admitted for the duration of their status as students.\28\ Legacy INS
explained the changes would facilitate the admission of nonimmigrant
students, provide dollar and manpower savings to the Government, and
permit more efficient use of resources.\29\ On November 22, 1978, a
final rule was published to amend the regulations at 8 CFR 214 to allow
the legacy INS to admit F-1 students for a D/S period.\30\ That rule
became effective on January 1, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 38 FR 35425 (Dec. 28, 1973) (The period of admission of
a nonimmigrant student shall not exceed one year.).
\28\ See Admission of Nonimmigrant Students for Duration of
Status, 43 FR 32306 (July 26, 1978).
\29\ Id. at 32306-07.
\30\ See 43 FR 54618 (Nov. 22, 1978) (The period of admission of
a nonimmigrant student shall be for the duration of status in the
United States as a student if the information on his/her Form I-20
indicates that he/she will remain in the United States as a student
for more than 1 year. If the information on Form I-20 indicates the
student will remain in the United States for 1 year or less, he/she
shall be admitted for the time necessary to complete his/her period
of study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44981]]
Subsequently, between January 23, 1981, and October 29, 1991, the
INS amended the regulations addressing admission periods for F-1
students four more times.\31\ On January 23, 1981, a rule changed
admission for F-1 nonimmigrants to a fixed period of admission, i.e.,
the time necessary to complete the course of study, with the
opportunity for an EOS on a case-by-case basis.\32\ Legacy INS
explained this was necessary because admitting nonimmigrants students
for D/S resulted in questionable control over foreign students and
contributed to problems in record keeping.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Nonimmigrant Classes; Revised Requirements for
Nonimmigrant ``F-1'' Students, 46 FR 7267 (Jan. 23, 1981),
Nonimmigrant Classes; Change of Nonimmigrant Classification;
Revisions in Regulations Pertaining to Nonimmigrant Students and the
Schools Approved for Their Attendance, 48 FR 14575 (Apr. 5, 1983);
Nonimmigrant Classes; F-1 Academic Students, 52 FR 13223 (Apr. 22,
1987); Nonimmigrant Classes; Students F and M Classifications, 56 FR
55608 (Oct. 29, 1991).
\32\ See 46 FR 7267 (Jan. 23, 1981).
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 1983, D/S was reinstituted with, among other changes,
the implementation of new notification procedures for transfers between
schools, improved reporting requirements for Designated School
Officials (DSOs),\34\ a limit for enrollment in one educational level,
and a requirement for F-1 students to apply for an EOS and, if
applicable, a school transfer to pursue another educational program at
the same level of educational attainment.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ A DSO means a regularly employed member of the school
administration whose office is located at the school and whose
compensation does not come from commissions for recruitment of
foreign students See 8 CFR 214.3(l).
\35\ See 48 FR 14575 (Apr. 5, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 22, 1987, a final rule outlined medical and academic
reasons that would allow F-1 students to drop below a full-time course
of study while remaining in D/S status and clarified when an EOS or
reinstatement must be requested.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 52 FR 13223 (Apr. 22, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in 1991, the regulations were revised to implement Section
221(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90), Public Law 101-649,
104 Stat. 4978, which established a three-year off-campus program for
F-1 students,\37\ and clarified the procedures for F-1 students seeking
EOS and employment authorization utilizing the Form I-20.\38\ The rule
also gave DSOs the authority to grant program extensions (essentially
an EOS) for F-1 students with a compelling academic or medical reason
that prevented them from completing their educational program by a
program end date and then to notify INS of the extension.\39\ Since
then, and pursuant to the 1991 final rule, the DHS has relied on DSOs
to report on student status, issue program extensions, and transfer
students between programs and schools. Information from these
nonimmigrant students is now tracked in SEVIS to ensure government
agencies have essential data related to nonimmigrant students to
preserve national security. This is consistent with the requirements in
IIRIRA, the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56, and the recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Report. Changes to D/S were proposed for F
students in 2020, but the proposal was withdrawn in 2021.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 56 FR 55608 (Oct. 29, 1991).
\38\ Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant
Student Status, is the document used by DHS that provides supporting
information for the issuance of a student visa. Applicants
(including dependents) must have a Form I-20 to apply for a student
visa, to enter the United States, and to apply for an EAD to engage
in OPT. See SEVP's web page, Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility
for Nonimmigrant Student Status, https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/I-20_Intial.pdf (last updated Mar. 31, 2018).
\39\ See 56 FR 55608 (Oct. 29, 1991).
\40\ See Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an
Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students,
Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media,
85 FR 60526 (Sept. 25, 2020) and Establishing a Fixed Time Period of
Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant
Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign
Information Media, 86 FR 35410 (July 6, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. J Classification
The J nonimmigrant classification was created in 1961 by the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, also known as the
Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, 75 Stat. 527 (22 U.S.C.
2451, et seq.), to increase mutual understanding between the people of
the United States and the people of other countries by means of
educational and cultural exchanges. It authorizes aliens to participate
in a variety of exchange visitor programs in the United States. The
Exchange Visitor Program regulations cover the following program
categories: professors and research scholars, short-term scholars,
trainees and interns, college and university students, teachers,
secondary school students, specialists, alien physicians, international
visitors, government visitors, camp counselors, au pairs, and summer
work travel.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See INA 101(a)(15)(J), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J); 22 CFR
62.20-62.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 1985, J exchange visitors were granted an initial
admission for the period of their program up to one year.\42\ In 1985,
the regulations were amended to allow J exchange visitors to be
admitted for the duration of their program plus 30 days.\43\ This
change from being admitted for a fixed period to D/S was implemented as
part of a continuing effort to reduce reporting requirements for the
public as well as the paperwork burden on the agency associated with
processing extension requests.\44\ Changes to D/S were proposed for J
exchange visitors in 2020, but the proposal was withdrawn in 2021.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii) (1985).
\43\ See 50 FR 42006 (Oct. 17, 1985).
\44\ Id.
\45\ See 85 FR 60526 (Sept. 25, 2020) and 86 FR 35410 (July 6,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A prospective exchange visitor must be sponsored by a DoS-
designated program sponsor to be admitted to the United States in the J
nonimmigrant classification and participate in an exchange visitor
program. The DoS designated sponsor will issue a prospective J exchange
visitor a Form DS-2019, Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor
(J-1) Status. The DS-2019 permits a prospective exchange visitor to
apply for a J-1 nonimmigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad
or seek admission as a J-1 nonimmigrant at a POE. A J-1 exchange
visitor is admitted into the United States for D/S, which is the length
of his or her exchange visitor program.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Form DS-2019, Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange
Visitor (J-1) Status, is the document required to support an
application for an exchange visitor visa (J-1). It is a 2-page
document that can only be produced through SEVIS. SEVIS is the DHS
database developed to collect information on F, M, and J
nonimmigrants (see 8 U.S.C. 1372 and 6 U.S.C. 252(a)(4)). The
potential exchange visitor's signature on page one of the form is
required. Page 2 of the current Form DS-2019 consists of
instructions and certification language relating to participation.
No blank Forms DS-2019 exist. Each Form DS-2019 is printed with a
unique identifier known as a ``SEVIS ID number'' in the top right-
hand corner, which consists of an ``alpha'' character (N) and 10
numerical characters (e.g., N0002123457). The DoS' Office of Private
Sector Exchange Designation in the Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs (ECA/EC/D) designates U.S. organizations to conduct
exchange visitor programs. These organizations are known as program
sponsors. When designated, the organization is authorized access to
SEVIS and is then able to produce Form DS-2019 from SEVIS. The
program sponsor signs the completed Forms DS-2019 in blue ink and
transmits them to the potential exchange visitor and his or her
spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21. J visa applicants
must present a signed Form DS-2019 at the time of their visa
interview. Once the visa is issued, however, the biographic
information on the SEVIS record cannot be updated until the
participant's program is validated (``Active'' in SEVIS). The
sponsor is required to update the SEVIS record upon the exchange
visitor's entry, and no corrections to the record can be made until
that time. In addition, in the event a visa is needed, sponsors may
issue a Form DS-2019 for a dependent spouse or child; the system
will not permit a new Form DS-2019 to be created as long as the
primary's SEVIS record is validated in initial or active status. See
9 FAM 402.5-6(D)(1)(U), The Basic Form, https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040205.html (last updated Aug. 15, 2024). While
applicants must still present a paper Form DS-2019 to DoS in order
to qualify for a visa, the SEVIS record is the definitive record of
student or exchange visitor status and visa eligibility. See 9 FAM
402.5-4(B)(U), Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS) Record is Definitive Record, https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040205.html (last updated Apr. 22, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44982]]
Extensions of J exchange visitor programs are governed by DoS
regulations.\47\ If there is authority to extend a program, the
exchange visitor program sponsor's RO,\48\ similar to the DSO in the F-
1 student context, is authorized to extend a J exchange visitor's
program by issuing a duly executed Form DS-2019.\49\ Requests for
extensions beyond the maximum program duration provided in the
regulations must be approved by DoS, which adjudicates these
extensions. USCIS does not adjudicate these program extensions;
however, USCIS does adjudicate requests to change into J status from
another nonimmigrant status. As outlined above, consistent with the
requirements in IIRIRA and the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56, J
exchange visitor programs are also monitored using SEVIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 22 CFR part 62. These programs vary in length. For
example, professors and research scholars are generally authorized
to participate in the Exchange Visitor Program for the length of
time necessary to complete the program, provided such time does not
exceed five years. See 22 CFR 62.20(i)(1). Alien physicians are also
generally limited to 7 years. See 22 CFR 62.27(e)(2).
\48\ An RO is an employee or officer of a sponsor who has been
nominated by the sponsor, and approved by DoS, to carry out the
duties outlined in 22 CFR 62.11.
\49\ See 22 CFR 62.43. An RO must be a citizen of the United
States or a lawful permanent resident of the United States. See 22
CFR 62.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. I Classification
Section 101(a)(15)(I) of the INA defines the I classification as,
upon a basis of reciprocity, an alien who is a bona fide representative
of foreign press, radio, film, or other foreign information media who
seeks to enter the United States solely to engage in such vocation, and
the spouse and children of such a representative, if accompanying or
following to join him or her. Most nonimmigrant representatives of
information media (with the exception of those presenting a passport
issued by the PRC) are currently admitted for the duration of their
employment. They are not permitted to change their information medium
or employer until they obtain permission from USCIS.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See 8 CFR 214.2(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1973 to 1985, aliens admitted to the United States in I
nonimmigrant status were admitted for a period of 1 year with the
possibility of extensions.\51\ In 1985, legacy INS amended the
regulations to allow nonimmigrant representatives of information media
to be admitted for the duration of their employment.\52\ This change
from a set time period of admission to admission for duration of
employment for I nonimmigrants was implemented as part of a continuing
effort to reduce reporting requirements for the public, as well as the
paperwork burden associated with processing extension requests on the
agency.\53\ Through its administration of the regulations authorizing I
nonimmigrants admission for duration of employment, DHS currently
admits all I nonimmigrants for D/S, with the exception of those
presenting a passport issued by the PRC (other than a Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (SAR) passport or a Macau SAR passport).\54\
Changes to D/S were proposed for I foreign media representatives in
2020, but the proposal was withdrawn in 2021.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See 38 FR 35425 (Dec. 28, 1973). See also 50 FR 42006 (Oct.
17, 1985) (indicating that, prior to the publication of this rule, I
nonimmigrants were admitted for one year).
\52\ See 8 CFR 214.2(i); 50 FR 42006 (Oct. 17, 1985).
\53\ Id.
\54\ See Period of Admission and Extensions of Stay for
Representatives of Foreign Information Media Seeking to Enter the
United States, 87 FR 61959 (Oct. 13, 2022) and Period of Admission
and Extensions of Stay for Representatives of Foreign Information
Media Seeking to Enter the United States, 85 FR 27645 (May 11,
2020).
\55\ See 85 FR 60526 (Sept. 25, 2020) and 86 FR 35410 (July 6,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Need for Rulemaking
1. Risks to the Integrity of the F, J, and I Nonimmigrant
Classifications
DHS welcomes F academic students, J exchange visitors, and I
representatives of foreign information media, but it also acknowledges
that the sheer size of the population complicates oversight and vetting
functions. Since 1980, the number of F nonimmigrant students admitted
into the United States has more than sextupled.\56\ Similarly, since D/
S was introduced for J and I nonimmigrants in 1985, the number of
exchange visitors admitted into the United States has more than
quadrupled while the number of representatives of foreign information
media has more than doubled.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ For example, approximately 260,000 F-1 students were
admitted into the United States during the 1980-81 school year. See
GAO, Controls Over Foreign Students in U.S. Postsecondary
Institutions Are Still Ineffective, supra note 12, pg. ii. In fiscal
year (FY) 2024, 1,816,480 F-1 students were admitted into the United
States. See DHS FY 2024, Quarter 4, tbl.4B, supra note 11.
\57\ In 1985, 110,942 exchange visitors and 16,753
representatives of the foreign information media were admitted into
the United States. See 1997 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (Oct. 1999), Tbl. 39, 118-19, supra note
10. In FY 2024, 514,170 exchange visitors and 37,330 representatives
of the foreign information media were admitted into the United
States. See DHS FY 2024, Quarter 4, tbl.4B, supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS uses SEVIS, a web-based system, to maintain information
regarding: SEVP-certified schools; F-1 students studying in the United
States (and their F-2 dependents); M-1 students enrolled in vocational
programs in the United States (and their M-2 dependents); DoS-
designated Exchange Visitor Program sponsors; and J-1 Exchange Visitor
Program participants (and their J-2 dependents). SEVIS is necessary for
national security and is consistent with the requirements in IIRIRA,
the USA PATRIOT Act, and the 9/11 Commission Report.
Employees of educational institutions and program sponsors,
specifically DSOs and ROs, play a large role in SEVIS. They are
responsible for monitoring students and exchange visitors, accurately
entering information about the students' and exchange visitors'
activities into SEVIS, and properly determining whether the student or
exchange visitor's SEVIS record should remain in active status or
change to reflect a change in circumstances.\58\ Under this framework,
an academic student or exchange visitor generally maintains lawful
status by complying with the conditions of the program, as certified by
the DSO or RO. However, a program extension and an extension of an
alien's nonimmigrant stay are different. DHS believes it is appropriate
for the DSO to recommend an extension of an academic program and an RO
to recommend an extension of an exchange visitor program; however, an
EOS involves an adjudication of whether an alien is legally eligible to
extend his or her stay in the United States in a given nonimmigrant
status and has been complying with the terms and conditions of his or
her admission.\59\ DHS believes that the determinations of program
extension and EOS should be
[[Page 44983]]
separated, with the DSO's and RO's recommendation being one factor an
immigration officer reviews while adjudicating an application for EOS.
Changing to a fixed period of admission will give immigration officers
a mechanism to make this evaluation at reasonably frequent intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See 8 CFR 214.3(g)(1), (g)(2) (detailing a DSO's reporting
requirements); 214.4(a)(2) (stating that failure to comply with
reporting requirements may result in loss of SEVP certification).
\59\ See 8 CFR 214.1(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DHS expects this change will deter and prevent fraud,
as a requirement to check in directly with an immigration officer is
inherently likely to deter exploitation of perceived vulnerabilities in
the F and J nonimmigrant classifications. The same benefits of direct
evaluation, better recordkeeping, and fraud prevention will also apply
to the I population.
2. Risks Within the F Classification
DHS is aware that the F-1 program is subject to fraud,
exploitation, and abuse. Since 2008, multiple school owners and others
have been criminally prosecuted for ``pay-to-stay'' fraud, in which
school officials, in return for cash payments, falsely report that F-1
students who do not attend school are maintaining their student
status.\60\ In some cases, convicted school owners operated multiple
schools and transferred students among them to conceal the fraud.\61\
DHS is also concerned that DSOs at these schools were complicit in
these abuses; some DSOs intentionally recorded a student's status
inaccurately.\62\ Further, DSOs have issued program extensions to
students who did not have compelling medical or academic reasons for
failing to complete their program by its end date and DHS continues to
observe F-1 students enrolling in schools for extended periods of time.
For example, DHS previously identified in the NPRM a nonimmigrant who
was an F-1 student at a dance school from 1991-2021. Although the
reported normal length of the dance program is 5 years, the school
issued 17 program extensions between 2003 (when the use of SEVIS was
mandated) and 2020, claiming that the student needed more time despite
nearly 30 years of enrollment. The student subsequently transferred to
an English language training program at another school with a program
start date in November 2022, despite more than 30 years in the United
States as an F-1 student. She remained enrolled there until December
2025, when she transferred to another school to commence additional
language training with a program start date of January 19, 2026, and a
program end date of January 19, 2029. She has been an F-1 student for
approximately 35 years. If she remains at the school through the
current program end date, she will have spent nearly 38 years in the
United States in F-1 status.\63\ In another case, DHS also identified a
nonimmigrant who has been in F-1 student status for more than 18 years
since he enrolled in an English language training program that began on
April 21, 2008. He has enrolled in four language training programs,
four bachelor's programs, and is currently enrolled in a master's in
theology/theological studies program with a program end date in August
2027.\64\ Another student who was enrolled at the same school from 2009
to 2020 and had been an F-1 student since 2005, was granted 14 program
extensions. DHS also identified three F-1 students in doctoral programs
that have taken over 20 years to complete their programs, and 5 F-1
students at community colleges have been enrolled in associate degree
programs for periods in excess of 5 years--some for as long as a
decade.\65\ There are also examples where some DSOs permitted students
who failed to maintain status to transfer to another school rather than
apply for reinstatement.\66\ Beyond cases publicly identified by DHS
and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), DHS is concerned about cases
where DSOs were not aware of status violations by students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Operator of English
language schools charged in massive student visa fraud scheme (Apr.
9, 2008), https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/cac/Pressroom/pr2008/038.html; U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Owner/Operator and
employee of Miami-based school sentenced for immigration-related
fraud (Aug. 30, 2010), https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/fls/PressReleases/2010/100830-02.html; Immig. & Customs Enf't, Press
Release, Pastor sentenced to 1 year for visa fraud, ordered to
forfeit building housing former religious school (June 13, 2011),
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/pastor-sentenced-1-year-visa-fraud-ordered-forfeit-building-housing-former-religious; U.S. Dep't
of Justice, Press Release, School Official Admits Visa Fraud (Mar.
12, 2012), https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/pae/News/2012/Mar/tkhir_release.htm; Immig. & Customs Enf't, Press Release, Owner of
Georgia English language school sentenced for immigration fraud (May
7, 2014), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/owner-georgia-english-language-school-sentenced-immigration-fraud; Immig. & Customs Enf't,
Press Release, 3 Senior Executives of For-profit Schools Plead
Guilty to Student Visa, Financial Aid Fraud (Apr. 30, 2015), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/3-senior-executives-profit-schools-plead-guilty-student-visa-financial-aid-fraud; Immig. & Customs Enf't,
Press Release, Owner of Schools That Illegally Allowed Foreign
Nationals to Remain in U.S. as ``Students'' Sentenced to 15 Months
in Federal Prison (Apr. 19, 2018), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/owner-schools-illegally-allowed-foreign-nationals-remain-us-students-sentenced-15.
\61\ Immig. & Customs Enf't, Press Release, 3 Senior Executives
of For-profit s Schools Plead Guilty to Student Visa, Financial Aid
Fraud, supra note 60.
\62\ Goff Wilson, Former DSO Official Found Guilty of Visa Fraud
(May 20, 2019), https://www.goffwilson.com/Blawg-entries/2019/former-DSO-Official-Guilty-of-Visa-Fraud.aspx;
ImmigrationReform.com, U.S. Removes 4,600 Fraudulent OPT
Participants from the Program (July 14, 2020), https://www.immigrationreform.com/2020/7/2014/OPT-fraud-dhs-crackdown-immigrationreform-com; U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release,
Operator of English Language Schools Charged in Massive Student Visa
Fraud Scheme, supra note 60; U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release,
Owner/Operator and Employee of Miami-based School Sentenced for
Immigration-related Fraud, supra note 60; Immig. & Customs Enf't,
Press Release, Pastor Sentenced to 1 Year for Visa Fraud, Ordered to
Forfeit Building Housing Former Religious School, supra note 60;
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, School Official Admits Visa
Fraud, supra note 60; Immig. & Customs Enf't, Press Release, Owner
of Georgia English Language School Sentenced for Immigration Fraud,
supra note 60; Immig. & Customs Enf't, Press Release, 3 Senior
Executives of For-profit Schools Plead Guilty to Student Visa,
Financial Aid Fraud, supra note 60; Immig. & Customs Enf't, Press
Release, Owner of Schools that Illegally Allowed Foreign Nationals
to Remain in U.S. as ``Students'' Sentenced to 15 Months in Federal
Prison, supra note 60.
\63\ DHS analysis of data in SEVIS and valid as of June 2, 2026.
\64\ Id.
\65\ DHS analysis of data in SEVIS and valid as of May 7, 2025.
\66\ Immig. & Customs Enf't, Press Release, 3 Senior Executives
of For-profit Schools Plead Guilty to Student Visa, Financial Aid
Fraud, supra note 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from concerns about DSOs and school owners involved in
fraudulent schemes, DHS also has concerns about the actions of the
aliens themselves. Some aliens have used the F classification to reside
in the United States for decades by continuously enrolling in or
transferring between schools, a practice facilitated by the D/S
framework.\67\ DHS identified over 2,100 aliens who first entered as F-
1 students between 2000 and 2010 and remain in active F-1 status as of
April 6, 2025.\68\ To extend their stay, these aliens enrolled in
consecutive educational programs, repeatedly transferred to new
schools, or DSOs repeatedly extended their program end dates. This
practice is not limited to any one particular type of school; students
at community or junior colleges, universities, and language training
schools have maintained F-1 status for lengthy periods. DHS is
concerned that such instances of extended stays may violate the
underlying statutory intent given that student status is meant to be
temporary, with the alien having no intention of abandoning their
residence in a foreign country, and for the primary purpose of
studying, not as a way to
[[Page 44984]]
remain in the United States indefinitely.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Monitoring F-1 students on post-completion OPT can be even
more complicated because the students are no longer attending
classes. See GAO, GAO-14-356, Student and Exchange Visitor Program,
DHS Needs to Assess Risks and Strengthen Oversight of Foreign
Students with Employment Authorization (Feb. 27, 2014), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-356.pdf.
\68\ DHS analysis of data in SEVIS identifying the number of F-1
active students who began studying between 2000 and 2010, valid as
of Apr. 6, 2025.
\69\ See INA section 101(a)(15)(F)(i), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of the F classification to remain in the United States for
decades raises doubts that the alien's intention was to stay in the
United States temporarily, as required by the INA.\70\ It also raises
concerns as to whether those aliens are bona fide nonimmigrant students
who are maintaining valid lawful status by complying with the terms of
their admission, which include solely pursuing a full course of study
and progressing to completing a course of study. Likewise, it raises
concerns as to whether these aliens truly have the financial resources
to cover tuition and living expenses without engaging in unauthorized
employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See INA section 101(a)(15)(F)(i), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when employment is authorized under programs such as the
Optional Practical Training (OPT), DHS has found fraud that enabled
students to stay in the U.S. without actually having legitimate jobs.
ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons told reporters at a press conference on
May 12, 2026, that ICE had identified more than 10,000 cases of
potential fraud associated with the OPT program. The cases were
identified after site visits and other investigative techniques showed
that some employers were just shell companies helping recent graduates
stay in the U.S. without actual work at a legitimate U.S. company or
working for supposedly U.S. based companies managed from abroad, which
violates the law requiring U.S. training and direction.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Bazail-Eimil, E., Politico, ICE: More than 10,000 Potential
Fraud Cases Related to Student Job Program (May 12, 2026) https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/12/ice-optional-practical-training-fraud-00916797?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQKNjYyODU2ODM3OQABHu-ImKwboqhNMO80GLrZjBo_qILfwUY-Z6JPDnwwm6kP5wOJevFE6OQSF-t__aem_6dBAnJ-5UnboRuB5hQnZAQ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, while some school owners and school executives have faced
legal consequences for their violation of the law, nonimmigrants
admitted for D/S generally do not accrue unlawful presence for purposes
of the 3- and 10-year bars described in INA 212(a)(9)(B) and (C), 8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B) and (C), unless an immigration officer finds they
have violated their status in the context of adjudicating an
immigration benefit request, or an immigration judge orders them
excluded, deported, or removed.\72\ Because F-1 students are admitted
for D/S, they generally do not file applications or petitions, such as
EOS applications, with USCIS, and therefore, immigration officers do
not generally have an opportunity to determine whether the students are
engaging in F-1 nonimmigrant activities in the United States and
maintaining their F-1 nonimmigrant status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See USCIS, Interoffice Memorandum: Consolidation of
Guidance Concerning Unlawful Presence for Purposes of Sections
212(a)(9)(B)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Act (May 6, 2009),
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/revision_redesign_AFM.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported on
DHS's concerns about DSOs and nonimmigrant students. In 2019, GAO and
ICE published a report identifying fraud risks to SEVP related to
managing school recertification and program training. The report
included vulnerabilities associated with involving school owners and
DSOs in overseeing the maintenance of status of F-1 students.\73\ In
the report, GAO identified fraud vulnerabilities on the part of both
students and schools. Examples include students claiming to maintain
status when they are not, such as failing to attend class or working
without appropriate authorization, or school owners not requiring
enrolled students to attend classes or creating fraudulent
documentation for students who are ineligible for the academic program.
GAO recommended that ICE develop a fraud risk profile and use data
analytics to identify potential fraud indicators in schools petitioning
for certification, develop and implement fraud training for DSOs, and
strengthen background checks for DSOs.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ In a 2019 report, GAO was asked to review potential
vulnerabilities to fraud in the SEVP. GAO examined, among other
things, the extent to which ICE (1) implemented controls to address
fraud risks in the school certification and recertification
processes and (2) implemented fraud risk controls related to DSO
training. See GAO, GAO-19-297, DHS Can Take Additional Steps to
Manage Fraud Risks Related to School Recertification and Program
Oversight (Mar 2019), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-297.pdf;
GAO, GAO-11-411, Overstay Enforcement: Additional Mechanisms for
Collecting, Assessing, and Sharing Data Could Strengthen DHS's
Efforts but Would Have Costs (Apr. 15, 2011), https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/317762.pdf; and GAO, GAO-12-572, Student and Exchange
Visitor Program: DHS Needs to Assess Risks and Strengthen Oversight
Functions (June 18, 2012), https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591668.pdf.
\74\ Since publishing its 2019 report, GAO has updated its
website to include comments to the Recommendations for Executive
Action included therein. ICE has taken steps to implement the
report's recommendations, including making a public announcement
regarding changing the timeline for the recertification notification
process for schools. See GAO, Student and Exchange Visitor Program:
DHS Can Take Additional Steps to Manage Fraud Risks Related to
School Recertification and Program Oversight, Recommendations (Mar.
18, 2019), https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-297?mobile_opt_out=1#summary_recommend (last visited Jun. 9, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS believes it can mitigate fraud risks in this rule in part
through setting the authorized admission and extension periods for F
nonimmigrants as the length of the F nonimmigrant's specific program,
not to exceed a 4-year period. The rule will establish a mechanism for
immigration officers to assess these nonimmigrants at defined periods
(such as when applying for an EOS in the United States beyond a 4-year
admission period) and determine whether they are complying with the
conditions of their classification. Immigration officers receive
background checks, clearances, and training before DHS authorizes them
to implement the nation's immigration laws, which includes as part of
adjudicating the application whether nonimmigrants meet the
requirements to extend their stay, whether a student has violated his
or her nonimmigrant status without the DSO's awareness or whether DSOs
are engaging in fraud by not requiring students to attend classes or by
falsifying documents. Immigration officers are further trained to
assess applications for fraud indicators and conduct reviews and
vetting that may assist in the detection of fraud or abuse. This will
provide further opportunities for DHS to identify and hold accountable
aliens who violate their F-1 status, as well as their educational
institutions. DHS currently employs out-of-cycle reviews and
recertification of SEVP-certified schools outlined in 8 CFR 214.3(h) to
ensure the school's compliance with regulatory recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. DHS may also conduct on-site reviews of schools
at any time, which may lead to withdrawal of SEVP certification upon
findings of noncompliance or regulatory violations. Under the current
D/S framework, DHS might not detect an individual F-1 status violation
for an extended period if the student stays enrolled in a school, does
not seek readmission to the United States, and does not apply for
additional immigration benefits. If DHS makes periodic assessments to
verify that F-1 students are maintaining their student status, DHS
could better detect and mitigate against these violations as well as
violations by their school.\75\ The rule creates opportunities for this
scrutiny if these nonimmigrants wish to remain beyond their fixed
period of admission. This may also have the effect of deterring
individuals who would otherwise seek to come to the United
[[Page 44985]]
States and engage in some of the behaviors discussed above, believing
they would be able to do so undetected for long periods of time. DHS
believes this is a more appropriate way to maintain the integrity of
the U.S. immigration system. Additionally, DHS believes the changes
will allow immigration officers to directly verify, among other things,
that students applying for an EOS: have the funds needed to live and
study in the United States without engaging in unauthorized work; are
maintaining a residence abroad to which they intend to return; have
pursued and are pursuing a full course of study; and are completing
their studies within the 4-year generally applicable timeframe relating
to their post-secondary education programs in the United States or are
able to provide a permissible explanation for taking a longer period of
time to complete the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ For example, SEVP may withdraw a school's certification or
deny a school's recertification if a DSO willfully issues a false
statement, including wrongful certification of a statement by
signature, in connection with a student's school transfer or
application for employment or practical training. See 8 CFR
214.4(a)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, because the D/S framework reduces opportunities for direct
vetting of foreign academic students by immigration officers, it
creates opportunities for foreign adversaries to exploit the F-1
program and undermine U.S. national security. Under the D/S framework,
DHS has identified national security threats within the F-1 program.
For example, on March 24, 2023, a Russian man was charged with acting
as an agent of a foreign power, visa fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, and
other charges stemming from his illegal activities in the United States
functioning as an ``illegal'' agent for a Russian Intelligence Service.
He obtained an F-1 visa in 2018 under an assumed Brazilian identity,
which he used to enter the United States and enroll in a U.S.
university from 2018 to 2020.\76\ In recent years, multiple F-1
students have been arrested in connection with illegal activities
pertaining to U.S. military bases.\77\ On January 18, 2024 the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested a student from China for
prohibited operation of an unmanned aircraft system, violation of
national defense airspace, and photography of defense installations
after an investigation revealed the student utilized a commercial drone
to take photographs of U.S. naval bases in the Norfolk, Virginia area.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia's Newport
News Division convicted him for use of an aircraft for the unlawful
photographing of designated installation without authorization on
October 2, 2024, and he was removed from the United States on May 7,
2025.\78\ In June 2020, three Chinese nationals were sentenced to
federal prison for illegal photography of a U.S. naval installation in
Key West, Florida. Two of those arrested were F-1 students, and one was
a J-1 exchange visitor.\79\ In October 2024, five Chinese students were
charged with conspiracy, making false statements and destroying records
in connection with a federal investigation after they were observed
with cameras at Camp Grayling in Michigan during a training exercise in
August 2023 where thousands of military officials, including some from
Taiwan, were participating.\80\ Each of these examples was part of
DHS's analysis of SEVIS data on June 2, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Russian National
``Illegal'' Charged with Acting as Agent of a Russian Intelligence
Service in the United States (March 24, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/russian-national-illegal-charged-acting-agent-russian-intelligence-service-united-states. See also DHS
analysis of data in SEVIS and valid as of June 2, 2026.
\77\ See Lubold, G., Stobel, W.P., and Viswanatha, A., The Wall
Street Journal, Chinese Gate-Crashers at U.S. Bases Spark Espionage
Concerns (last updated Sept. 4, 2023), https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/chinese-gate-crashers-at-u-s-bases-spark-espionage-concerns-cdef8187.
\78\ Immig. & Customs Enf't, Press Release, ICE removes Chinese
national convicted of photographing military installations (May 14,
2025), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-removes-chinese-national-convicted-photographing-military-installations.
\79\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Three Chinese
Nationals Sentenced to Prison for Illegal Photography of U.S. Naval
Installation in Key West, Florida (June 5, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/three-chinese-nationals-sentenced-prison-illegal-photography-us-naval-installation-key.
\80\ Blake, J., Inside Higher Ed, Chinese U of Michigan Grads
Charged in Countersurveillance Probe (Oct. 4, 2024), https://insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/10/04/five-chinese-u-m-students-charged-countersurveillance-probe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to creating risks to national security, some F-1
students pose risks to public safety and have been charged with
criminal acts. DHS has identified multiple F-1 students arrested since
2024 for their roles in sophisticated financial scams targeting
vulnerable and elderly victims in the United States. Some of these
schemes resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses to
victims. In some instances, multiple F-1 students were arrested for
their involvement in the same schemes.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See Iowa Insurance Division, Press Release, Chicago Man
Arrested for Conspiracy Related to Gold Bar Scam (Oct. 16, 2025),
https://iid.iowa.gov/press-release/2025-10-16/chicago-man-arrested-conspiracy-related-gold-bar-scam; Sebastian, C., El Paso County
Sheriff, Suspect Arrested in Multi-State Government Impersonation
Scam (Oct. 16, 2025), https://epcsheriffsoffice.com/suspect-arrested-in-multi-state-government-impersonation-scam/; Bensen, J.,
NBC 4 Washington, DC Police Arrest Suspects in Elaborate Gold Bar
Scam (Aug. 6, 2025), https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-police-arrest-suspects-in-elaborate-gold-bar-scam/3971831/; U.S.
Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Massachusetts Man Charged and
Detained in Ongoing Elder Fraud Investigation (Nov. 24, 2025),
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ri/pr/massachusetts-man-charged-and-detained-ongoing-elder-fraud-investigation; and U.S. Dep't of
Justice, Press Release, Three Nigerian Citizens Indicted for Wire
Fraud and Money Laundering (Jan. 25, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwi/pr/three-nigerian-citizens-indicted-wire-fraud-and-money-laundering. This was part of DHS's analysis of SEVIS data on June 2,
2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An open education environment in the United States offers benefits,
but it also places research universities and the nation at risk for
economic, academic, or military espionage by foreign students. Foreign
adversaries are using progressively sophisticated and resourceful
methods to exploit the U.S. educational environment, including well-
documented cases of espionage through the student program.\82\
[[Page 44986]]
Detecting and deterring emerging threats to U.S. national security
posed by adversaries exploiting the F-1 program requires additional
oversight. In 2022, in response to a Congressional inquiry, GAO
investigated and made recommendations that ICE modify the SEVIS system
to include factors that potentially indicate which foreign students or
scholars may pose more risk of transferring technology at U.S.
universities.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ In January of 2023, Ji Chaoqun, a Chinese national who came
to the United States to study electrical engineering at the Illinois
Institute of Technology in 2013, was sentenced to eight years for
spying for the Chinese government. See CNN Politics, Chinese
Engineer Sentenced to 8 years in U.S. Prison for Spying (Jan. 25,
2023), https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/25/politics/chinese-engineer-sentence-spying-intl-hnk/index.html. In December 2019, Weiyun
(Kelly) Huang, the owner of Findream and Sinocontech, pleaded guilty
to conspiracy to commit visa fraud in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. In return for
payments, Findream listed aliens as OPT workers, providing them with
what appeared to be legal status. The FBI charged one of those
aliens with spying. See NBC Bay Area, Kelly Huang Criminal Compliant
(Mar. 28, 2019), https://media.nbcbayarea.com/2019/09/KellyHuangCriminalComplaint.pdf. Huang was sentenced to 37 months in
federal prison for conspiracy to commit visa fraud. U.S. Dep't of
Justice, Press Release, Chinese Business Woman Sentenced to 37
Months in Federal Prison for Conspiracy to Commit Visa Fraud (June
26, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/chinese-businesswoman-sentenced-37-months-federal-prison-conspiracy-commit-visa-fraud. This vulnerability presented in the nonimmigrant student
classification has been highlighted by the FBI. In a 2018 hearing
before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI Director testified
about the threat from China, noting ``that the use of nontraditional
collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it's
professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field
office that the FBI has around the country. It's not just in major
cities. It's in small ones as well. It's across basically every
discipline. I think the level of naivet[eacute] on the part of the
academic sector about this creates its own issues. They're
exploiting the very open research and development environment that
we have, which we all revere, but they're taking advantage of it.
So, one of the things we're trying to do is view the China threat as
not just a whole of government threat, but a whole of society threat
on their end. I think it's going to take a whole of society response
by us. So, it's not just the intelligence community, but it's
raising awareness within our academic sector, within our private
sector, as part of the defense.'' See Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence Hearing, Worldwide Threats (Feb. 13, 2018), transcript
available at https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/2018/02/08/hearings-open-hearing-worldwide-threats-0/; see also Senate Finance
Committee, Foreign Threats to Taxpayer--Funded Research: Oversight
Opportunities and Policy Solutions: Hearing before the Senate
Finance Committee (June 5, 2019) (Statement of Louis A. Rodi III),
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/05JUN2019RodiSMNT.pdf.
DSOs are not trained immigration officers nor are they in a position
to make such determinations.
\83\ See GAO, GAO 23-106114, China, Efforts Underway to Address
Technology Transfer Risk at U.S. Universities, but ICE Could Improve
Related Data (Nov. 2022), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106114.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS believes that replacing admissions for D/S for F-1 students
with admission for a fixed time period will help mitigate these
national security risks by ensuring an immigration official directly
and periodically vets applicants for extensions of stay and, in so
doing, confirms they are engaged only in activities consistent with
their student status. F-1 nonimmigrants applying for EOS will also be
required to establish they are admissible, and failure to do so will
result in denial of the EOS. Admissibility grounds are complex and are
properly assessed by a trained DHS officer. Such an assessment is not
currently made when F-1 nonimmigrants apply for an extension of their
program with their institution.\84\ Significantly, under the changes to
the period of admission of F nonimmigrants and the applicable EOS
process, DHS may collect biometrics and other information (such as
evidence of financial resources to cover expenses and evidence of any
criminal activity) from F nonimmigrant students more frequently,
thereby enhancing the Government's oversight and monitoring of these
aliens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ In addition, DSOs may be unaware of a student's failure to
maintain status, including by engaging in criminal activity, nor do
they have the authority or ability to acquire such information.
Admitting F-1 nonimmigrants for a fixed period of admission would
provide trained immigration officers with the opportunity to vet
these individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Risks Within the J Classification
DHS believes that the national security risks posed by D/S
admissions for individuals admitted under the J classification are
similar to those posed by the F classification.\85\ According to a
December 2018 report by a panel of experts commissioned by the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) to study foreign influence on federally-
funded scientific research, ``Small numbers of scientists have
committed serious violations of NIH policies and systems by not
disclosing foreign support (i.e., grants), laboratories, or funded
faculty positions in other countries.'' \86\ As with F nonimmigrants,
setting the length of the J nonimmigrant's specific program to not
exceed a 4-year period will establish a mechanism for immigration
officers to assess these nonimmigrants at defined periods (such as when
applying for an EOS in the United States beyond a 4-year admission
period) and determine whether they are complying with the conditions of
their classification. This will increase vetting of the J nonimmigrant
population, which can help to prevent and deter nefarious actors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ In its 2019 Report to Congress, the United States-China
Economic and Security Review Commission, the Commission described
the United States Government's efforts to curb China's extensive
influence and espionage activities in academic and commercial
settings. The Commission noted that these efforts took the form of
visa restrictions for Chinese nationals, greater scrutiny of federal
funding awarded to universities, legal action against those
suspected of theft or espionage, and new legislation. See U.S.
Commission on China, U.S.-China Economic And Security Review
Commission, 2019 Annual Report to Congress (Nov. 2019), https://www.uscc.gov/annual-report/2019-annual-report.
\86\ See U.S. National Institutes of Health Advisory Committee
to the Director (ACD), ACD Working Group for Foreign Influences on
Research Integrity (Dec. 2018) (discussing measures to address
concerns about foreign influences related to graduate students and
post-doctoral fellows, as well as foreign employees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are multiple examples of ongoing national security threats
posed by J nonimmigrants under the D/S framework, thereby supporting
the need for increased oversight within the program. For example, in
2009, an Iranian national was issued a J-1 visa to be a visiting
professor in computer science at a U.S. university from September 2009
to August 2010. On November 8, 2012, the U.S. Department of the
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC'') designated him
as a person whose property and interests in property are blocked
pursuant to Executive Order 13628 of October 9, 2012, ``Authorizing the
Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Threat
Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 and Additional Sanctions
With Respect to Iran.'' \87\ He was reportedly attempting to acquire
equipment related to the monitoring of Short Message Service (SMS)
traffic from abroad as of February 2009 and, as of early July 2012, was
actively assisting the Government of Iran's internet censorship
activities.\88\ On November 5, 2025, three J-1 research scholars from
China were charged with conspiracy to smuggle biological materials into
the United States and for making false statements to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection officers.\89\ In June 2025, the U.S. Department of
Justice announced that two Chinese national J-1 exchange visitors were
charged with conspiracy and smuggling a dangerous biological pathogen
into the U.S. for their work at a U.S. university laboratory.\90\ On
November 5, 2025, one of the J-1 exchange visitors pleaded guilty to
charges of smuggling a biological pathogen into the U.S. and then lying
to FBI agents about it.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Dep't of Treasury,
Designation of Four (4) Individuals and Five (5) Entities Pursuant
to Executive Order 13628 of October 9, 2012, 77 FR 68820 (Nov. 16,
2012). This was part of DHS's analysis of SEVIS data on June 2,
2026.
\88\ United Against Nuclear Iran, Sanctioned Persons--Jalili,
Rasool, https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/sanctioned-person/jalili-rasool (last visited Jun 2, 2026). See also Rezaei, R.,
Iranwire, Who is Rasoul Jalili, the So-Called ``Father of
Filtering'' of the Islamic Republic? (Apr. 19, 2026), https://iranwire.com/en/features/151390-who-is-rasoul-jalili-the-so-called-father-of-filtering-of-the-islamic-republic/. This was part of DHS's
analysis of SEVIS data on June 2, 2026.
\89\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Three Chinese
National Scholars from University of Michigan Laboratory Charged for
Conspiring to Smuggle Biological Materials into the U.S. (Nov. 5,
2025), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-chinese-national-scholars-university-michigan-laboratory-charged-conspiring-smuggle.
This was part of DHS's analysis of SEVIS data on June 2, 2026.
\90\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Chinese Nationals
Charged with Conspiracy and Smuggling a Dangerous Biological
Pathogen into the U.S. for their Work at a University of Michigan
Laboratory (June 3, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/usao-edmi/pr/chinese-nationals-charged-conspiracy-and-smuggling-dangerous-biological-pathogen-us. This was part of DHS's analysis of SEVIS
data on June 2, 2026.
\91\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Chinese National
Pleads Guilty and is Sentenced for Smuggling a Dangerous Biological
Pathogen into the U.S. While Working at a University of Michigan
Laboratory (Nov. 12, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/usao-edmi/pr/chinese-national-pleads-guilty-and-sentenced-smuggling-dangerous-biological-pathogen. This was part of DHS's analysis of SEVIS data
on June 2, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another example, in September 2019, a stark illustration of
state-sponsored efforts to illegally obtain United States technology
emerged when the FBI charged Chinese government official Zhongsan Liu
with conspiracy to fraudulently procure United States research scholar
visas for Chinese officials whose actual purpose was to recruit United
States scientists for high technology development programs within
China.\92\ Liu was convicted of
[[Page 44987]]
participating in conspiracy to defraud the United States and
fraudulently obtain U.S. visas.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Chinese Government
Employee Charged in Manhattan Federal Court with Participating in
Conspiracy to Fraudulently Obtain U.S. Visas (Sept. 16, 2019),
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/chinese-government-employee-charged-manhattan-federal-court-participating-conspiracy.
\93\ See U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Chinese
Government Employee Convicted of Participating in Conspiracy to
Defraud the United States and Fraudulently Obtain U.S. Visas (Mar.
23, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/chinese-government-employee-convicted-participating-conspiracy-defraud-united-states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in December 2019, Zaosong Zheng, a 29-year-old
graduate student in J-1 status participating in an exchange visitor
program at Harvard University, was stopped at Boston Logan
International Airport. Federal agents determined he was a ``high risk
for possibly exporting undeclared biological material'' after finding
21 vials of brown liquid wrapped in a plastic bag inside a sock in his
checked luggage; typed and handwritten notes indicated ``that [the
exchange visitor] . . . was knowingly gathering and collecting
intellectual property. . . possibly on behalf of the Chinese
government.'' \94\ Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods
from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See Boston Herald, China May be Behind Theft of Bio Samples
by Harvard-Sponsored Chinese Student, Fed Says (Dec. 30, 2019),
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/12/30/peoples-republic-of-china-may-be-behind-theft-of-bio-samples-by-harvard-sponsored-chinese-student-feds-say/; see also The Daily Beast, China Might Be Behind
Harvard Student's Theft of Cancer Research, Feds Claim (Dec. 31,
2019), https://www.thedailybeast.com/china-might-be-behind-harvard-student-zaosong-zhengs-theft-of-cancer-research-feds-claim; U.S.
Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Harvard University Professor and
Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases
(Jan. 28, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2020, Yanqing Ye was charged with one count each of visa
fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign
government and conspiracy after Ye falsely identified herself on her J-
1 visa application as a ``student'' and lied about her ongoing military
service at a top military academy directed by the Chinese Communist
Party. It was further alleged that while studying at Boston
University's Department of Physics, Chemistry, and Biomedical
Engineering, Ye continued to work as a People's Liberation Army
Lieutenant completing numerous assignments from People's Liberation
Army officers such as conducting research, assessing United States
military websites and sending United States documents and information
to China.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Harvard University
Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China
Related Cases, supra note 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2020, a Chinese national who entered the United States on a
J-1 visa to conduct research at the University of California, San
Francisco was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport while
attempting to return to China and charged with visa fraud. According to
court documents, he allegedly is an officer with the PRC People's
Liberation Army and provided fraudulent information about his military
service in his visa application. He allegedly was instructed by his
military lab supervisor to bring information back to China about the
lab at University of California, San Francisco.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Officer of
China's People's Liberation Army Arrested at Los Angeles
International Airport (June 11, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/officer-china-s-people-s-liberation-army-arrested-los-angeles-international-airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2025, a J-1 Chinese research scholar at the University of
Michigan was charged in a criminal complaint for conspiracy, smuggling
goods into the United States, false statements, and visa fraud. The FBI
arrested the exchange visitor for allegedly smuggling a noxious fungus
which is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses
worldwide each year and causes health problems for both humans and
livestock. The J-1 allegedly received Chinese government funding for
her work on this pathogen and is a loyal member of the Chinese
Communist Party.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See Chinese Nationals Charged with Conspiracy and Smuggling
a Dangerous Biological Pathogen into the U.S. for their Work at a
University of Michigan Laboratory, supra note 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with F nonimmigrants, DHS believes that replacing admissions for
D/S for J-1s with admission for a fixed time period will help mitigate
the national security concerns described above. Exchange visitor
program categories include college and university students, which share
similarities with the F-1 nonimmigrant classification. Students
enrolled in such programs are pursuing post-secondary studies alongside
F-1 nonimmigrants. J-1 college and university students in a degree
program may be authorized to participate in the exchange visitor
program so long as they meet the requirements for duration of
participation, including pursuing a full course of study, echoing the
full course of study requirements for F-1 nonimmigrants. A J-1 exchange
visitor's program may also be extended by the ROs, subject to
regulation and/or approval by DoS, without an application to DHS. These
similarities give rise to the same concerns about national security
related to F-1s, as described above, and about fraud and abuse by J-1s
and their ROs. By requiring the same fixed period of admission for F-1s
and J-1s, J-1 college and university students in exchange visitor
programs will be unable to circumvent the intent of this rule,\98\
which is to protect the integrity of these programs and provide
additional protections and mechanisms for oversight. Because J exchange
visitors are also tracked in SEVIS, DHS believes it will be more
effective for an immigration officer to periodically confirm that an
alien has properly maintained status, rather than relying on the checks
of an RO that the J-1 is pursuing the activities permitted by the
exchange visitor program. As noted above, DHS believes it is more
appropriate for immigration officers, with their background checks,
clearances, and training from the U.S. government, to adjudicate
maintenance of nonimmigrant status and whether an alien is eligible for
an additional admission period. Switching from D/S to a fixed period of
admission will permit immigration officers the opportunity to determine
whether an alien is eligible for an additional period of time. If an
officer finds a violation of status while adjudicating the alien's
request, the consequences could be immediate. Applicants for EOS must
also establish that they are admissible, and failure to do so will
result in denial of the EOS.\99\ Admissibility grounds are complex and
are properly assessed by a trained DHS officer. Such an assessment is
not currently made when J exchange visitors apply for an extension of
their program with their RO.\100\ Thus, admitting J exchange visitors
for a fixed period, instead of for D/S, will give DHS more frequent
opportunities to directly vet these foreign visitors and ensure they
are bona fide exchange visitors, and it will prevent and deter
nefarious actors within the J exchange visitor population. Under the
changes to the period of admission of J exchange visitors and the
applicable EOS process, DHS may more frequently collect biometrics and
other information from J exchange visitors, enhancing the
[[Page 44988]]
Government's oversight and monitoring of these aliens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ References to ``this proposed rule'' and ``this proposed
rulemaking'' throughout this document refer to the rulemaking being
proposed within this NPRM.
\99\ See 8 CFR 214.1(a)(3).
\100\ ROs may be unaware of a student's failure to maintain
status, including by engaging in criminal activity. Admitting J-1s
for a fixed period of admission would provide trained DHS officers
with the opportunity to vet these individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Risks Within the I Classification
Admitting most I nonimmigrants for D/S affords them different
treatment from most other nonimmigrants, who are admitted for a
specified period of time. DHS believes admitting aliens temporarily to
the United States for a fixed period will strengthen vetting and
information collection and help immigration officers ensure that the I
nonimmigrants are, and will be, engaged in activities that are
permissible under INA 101(a)(15)(I). In addition, this rulemaking
requires individuals who wish to remain in I nonimmigrant status beyond
the end date of their authorized stay to apply for an EOS with USCIS,
at which point immigration officers can review their activities in the
United States. It also clarifies what DHS will require these
individuals to present as evidence supporting their EOS request.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ These proposed changes, including additional evidence
relating to foreign media organizations and activities the alien
intends to engage in while in I status, would also apply to a
nonimmigrant in the United States who requests to change his or her
nonimmigrant status to that of an I nonimmigrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
A. Support for the Proposed Rule
1. General Endorsement
Comments: Commenters expressed support for the proposed rule,
stating that the rule would curtail fraud and abuse associated with
these nonimmigrant classifications, enhance national security through
periodic vetting, promote compliance and fair competition, and
generally have a positive impact on the economy, schools, and students.
Multiple commenters supported the rule by remarking that it strengthens
competitiveness and the ability of the United States to attract the
world's brightest students while ensuring that only law-abiding
students remain in the system. Some commenters added that the rule
balances the interests of foreign nonimmigrants with the need to
protect national interests and safeguard opportunities for American
students and workers. Several commenters expressed support for the
fixed term and believed that the requirements to reapply for an
extension would not be an issue for the foreign students. In support of
the rule, several commenters also mentioned that the F, J, and I
classifications should be aligned with other visa classifications for
consistency. Some commenters stated that individuals in these visa
classifications should focus on their course of study and not on
employment. Additionally, while showing support, some commenters
indicated that the rule does not go far enough and called for more
restrictions. Additionally, some commenters expressed support for the
proposed rule, while also acknowledging that many nonimmigrant students
provide value to the United States. Some stated that the rule is well
within the federal government's lawful authority and plenary power over
immigration, follows the rulemaking procedures under the Administrative
Procedure Act, and does not implicate constitutional rights, as visas
confer a privilege and not an entitlement.
Response: DHS appreciates the support and in-depth understanding of
these issues. DHS agrees with commenters assessment about the impacts
of this rule and agrees the rule is well within its lawful authority.
As noted above, DHS believes the rule will give DHS the ability to
monitor and oversee these nonimmigrants while they are in the United
States, curtailing fraud and abuse associated with these nonimmigrant
classifications.
2. Positive Impacts on Immigration System
a. Fraud and Abuse, Overstays, and National Security
Comments: Commenters expressed support for the proposed time limits
and elimination of D/S, noting that such measures would help address
instances of abuse and fraud where the foreign student has no intent to
study and remains in the United States indefinitely. Commenters stated
that the fixed admission period for F, J, and I nonimmigrants creates
consistency across other nonimmigrant categories, as most nonimmigrant
categories have fixed admission terms, and creates fairness and clarity
to the system.
Specifically, commenters provided examples of fraud and abuse, such
as in the indefinite language training programs, visa mills, criminal
enterprises, ``pay-to-stay'' fraud--where school officials falsely
report that F-1 students who do not attend school are maintaining their
student status in return for cash payments, schools with classes that
require minimum in-person presence, issues with ``Day-1 CPT''--where
Curricular Practical Training (CPT) allows certain foreign graduate
students to start working in the United States immediately upon
admission, and foreign nationals abusing and misusing resources
provided by the university as well as by the local community. For
example, one commenter remarked that, as an American, the commenter
lost his job due to coordinated visa fraud. Another commenter remarked
that fraudulent IT consultancies train students and secure jobs for
them using fake resumes. Another commenter remarked that online forums
contain evidence of students with immigrant intent, crafting their
interview answers to get approved. One commenter remarked that there is
no attendance requirement or verification that F-1 students are
attending class and that students can drop classes with no verification
that they are slowing down the completion of their program to stay and
work in the United States longer. Another commenter noted that fraud by
certain schools and multiple large-scale ``sham school operations''
exacerbate inequities, and referenced Tri-Valley University, which was
noncompliant and closed operations.\102\ The commenter also mentioned
the University of Northern New Jersey, stating it involved an ICE
undercover sting that revealed more than 1,000 foreign nationals
enrolled through recruiters at a fake university to maintain status,
and Farmington University (sic), stating it involved an ICE sting that
exposed over 600 foreign students paying to remain in the United States
with no real classes.\103\ The commenter noted that these schemes not
only defraud the education system but also exploit students financially
and can result in unauthorized work arrangements akin to trafficking
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ The commenter did not provide citations or references to
support this assertion, but see, e.g., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press
Release, CEO and President of East Bay University Sentenced to 198
Months for Fraud Scheme (Nov. 3, 2014), https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/ceo-and-president-east-bay-university-sentenced-198-months-fraud-scheme.
\103\ The commenter did not provide citations or references to
support this assertion, but see, e.g., Manning, W., Nat'l L. Rev.,
The ``University of Northern New Jersey'' Visa Fraud Sting Operation
Shutdown After Arrest of 21 (Apr. 12, 2016), https://natlawreview.com/article/university-northern-new-jersey-visa-fraud-sting-operation-shutdown-after-arrest-21 and Immig. & Customs Enf't,
Press Release, Final Defendant Sentenced in ICE HSI University of
Farmington Investigation, (Jan. 29, 2020), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/final-defendant-sentenced-ice-hsi-university-farmington-investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatedly, a research organization pointed out that there are many
documented cases of visa abuse or fraud across U.S. visa
categories,\104\ and that
[[Page 44989]]
eliminating D/S will support the integrity of the immigration system by
allowing DHS to more easily uncover fraud and abuse in the F, J, and I
nonimmigrant visa programs. The research organization cited a USCIS
report stating that in some of these cases, school owners operate
multiple schools and transfer students between these schools to help
conceal the fraud.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ The commenter referenced Vaughan, J., Statement for the
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Restoring
Integrity and Security to the Visa Process (June 25, 2025); GAO,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Additional Actions Needed
to Manage Fraud Risks (Sept. 19, 2022); and North, D., Center for
Immigration Studies, The Dregs of Higher Education Damage Our
Immigration System (Sept. 11, 2017).
\105\ The commenter referenced North, D., Center for Immigration
Studies, Higher Education Fraud Comes in Two Different Packages,
Part 1 (Jan. 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few commenters also noted what they view as fraud and abuse of
the J-1 program. A commenter remarked that healthcare systems are
abusing these visas to train foreign doctors in very competitive
fields. The commenter noted that there are hundreds of competent
American physicians and medical students who are overlooked by
healthcare systems to hire J-1 medical residents/fellows. Another
commenter stated that J students are susceptible to abuse from
employers more than other visas. The commenter asserted that the GAO
and the DoS Inspector General had recommended that DoS should not be
operating the J program and reported that the visa results in American
workers being denied jobs. The commenter also highlighted articles
regarding J-1 nonimmigrants, though no specific citations were
provided: that J visa `Summer Work Travel Program' refers to the summer
of the guestworkers and that it can be used to avoid hiring Americans
year-round (``Visa program encourages seasonal hiring of foreign
students while U.S. youths go jobless'' Denver Post); that the J-1
program has become a `money machine,' with over $100 million received
every year in fees (``J-1 Visas: Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange,''
Center for Immigration Studies); that there are efforts to recruit
foreign youth to the program and into U.S. jobs to help employers
calculate how much money they can save by not hiring American youth
(Panel Transcript: Summer Work Travel Program, Center for Immigration
Studies); and that there is a strong lobby to expand the Summer Work
Travel program but no lobby for American youth. Another commenter also
wrote in support of the proposed rule, and with respect to J-1, the
commenter stated that if a nonimmigrant Ph.D. student is making
legitimate progress in their program of study, the new extension
process should not present an issue to the nonimmigrant student.
Commenters expressed support for a fixed period of admission,
reasoning that it promotes accountability and compliance, and decreases
overstays. A commenter stated that the current D/S policy allows over 1
million nonimmigrants to remain in the United States without defined
end dates, increasing the risk of overstays and weakening oversight.
The commenter further stated that the implementation of a fixed
admission period would improve compliance tracking and help address the
reported overstay rate, which is currently estimated to be around 2-to-
3-percent.
Many commenters addressed the rates of overstays among students
admitted for D/S, stating that a fixed admission period ensures
tracking of nonimmigrant visa holders' stays, thereby reducing the risk
of overstays. One organization stated that terminating D/S would
address visa overstays. The organization noted that in 1978, DOJ
proposed a rule allowing nonimmigrants to be admitted ``for the
duration of their status as students.'' \106\ The organization reported
that these changes were proposed despite a 1975 General Accounting
Office document, which reported high numbers of foreign student
overstays and found that among the 222,000 foreign students in the
United States in December 1974, 42 percent were in illegal status
resulting from overstaying their visas.\107\ The organization also
stated that individuals on student visas are more likely to be
authorized to work today than in 1979, due to the creation and
subsequent expansion of the OPT program and the addition of an
extension for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
OPT. The organization concluded that the potential for employment
increases enforcement challenges, given that work authorization
increases the risks of overstays and other violations. In support of
the rule, another commenter asserted that visa overstay for student or
exchange visitors is among the highest of all nonimmigrant groups at
3.67 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ 43 FR 32306 (July 26, 1978).
\107\ The commenter referenced GAO, Better Controls Needed to
Prevent Foreign Students from Violating the Conditions of Their
Entry and Stay While in the United States (Feb. 4, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few commenters discussed support for the rule with respect to
protecting national security. Commenters remarked that adversary
countries use foreign students to steal intellectual property, sabotage
agriculture, and engage in espionage. One commenter expressed that
there are foreign students who use U.S. resources while engaging in
activities that do not reflect positively on the United States,
including sharing content that is critical of the country on social
media. The commenter requested greater attention to how such resources
are allocated, to ensure they are used constructively and in support of
the broader goals of the nation. In support of the rule, a commenter
noted that in extreme cases, there have been reports of foreign
students intimidating others from their home countries who hold
differing political views, creating a chilling effect within
communities.
Commenters expressed concern that the current D/S framework weakens
DHS's ability to enforce immigration laws, further stating that the
newly proposed rule will foster national security by implementing
periodic reviews of nonimmigrant statuses, as a method for DHS to
routinely assess and mitigate risks. Some commenters referenced the
September 11, 2001, attacks, noting that some of the perpetrators had
entered the United States on student visas. The commenters further
stated that the proposed rule aligned with the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations of increasing information sharing between federal
agencies by supporting visa compliance through better tracking systems
of lawful status.
Similarly, commenters raised concerns about general national
security risks posed by foreign students, particularly those from China
and India, citing examples of espionage, intellectual property theft,
hazardous material transportation, and technology transfer. Commenters
pointed to espionage concerns, such as referencing the case of Ji
Chaoqun, who was sentenced to eight years in prison for spying while in
F-1 status. The commenters also raised concerns regarding countries
that may exploit student and exchange programs to place individuals in
sensitive academic fields, potentially for espionage or intellectual
property theft. Another commenter pointed out that a 2023 National
Intelligence Council report showed a 30 percent rise in espionage cases
linked to foreign students since 2019. Commenters stated that this rule
would facilitate periodic vetting, reduce administrative burdens on
DSOs, and ensure that individuals in sensitive programs are closely
monitored, reducing risks to national security.
Another commenter stated that there are documented cases of foreign
students smuggling dangerous biological materials across the United
States, and
[[Page 44990]]
of foreign nationals stealing cutting-edge American research, directly
threatening national security and intellectual property.\108\ One
comment raised concerns on the current immigration system being
incompatible with the financial interests of universities and employers
that maximize foreign enrollment and employment, even when the FBI is
reporting that a new China-related counterintelligence case is opened
approximately every 10 hours, and where global air travel is
increasingly accessible, allowing foreign nationals to take advantage
of United States' university systems and immigration policies.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ The commenter did not provide citations or references to
support this assertion, but see, e.g., Three Chinese National
Scholars from University of Michigan Laboratory Charged for
Conspiring to Smuggle Biological Materials into the U.S., supra note
89; ET Online, The Economic Times Students or Spies? How China
Infiltrated U.S. Universities (May 29, 2025), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/students-or-spies-how-china-infiltrated-us-universities/articleshow/121492092.cms; Winter, T., NBC News, Chinese Couple Charged with
Smuggling a Biological Pathogen into the U.S. (Jun. 3, 2025),
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/chinese-couple-charged-smuggling-biological-pathogen-us-rcna208658.
\109\ The commenter did not provide citations or references to
support this assertion, but see, e.g., China's Attempt to Influence
U.S. Institutions, Remarks by FBI Director Christopher Wray, Hudson
Institute Video Event, Washington, DC (July 7, 2020), https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches-and-testimony/the-threat-posed-by-the-chinese-government-and-the-chinese-communist-party-to-the-economic-and-national-security-of-the-united-states (Director Wray advised
the FBI was opening a new China-related counterintelligence case
about every 10 hours). See also e.g., Countering Threats Posed by
the Chinese Government Inside the U.S., Remarks by FBI Director
Chrisopher Way, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, Simi
Valley, CA (Jan. 31, 2022), (Director Wray advised that roughly
every 12 hours the FBI opens new cases to counter the CCP's
intelligence operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' support on this rule and
agrees that this rule will strengthen the integrity of the U.S.
immigration system, specifically relating to F, J, and I nonimmigrants,
and enhance national security. DHS acknowledges that the D/S framework
is vulnerable to fraud, abuse (including overstays), and national
security threats. While the commenter did not provide any specific
evidence supporting their claims of theft of American research or
threats to intellectual property or national security, DHS has provided
examples of national security threats and intellectual property theft
in transferring sensitive research back to China.\110\ In another
recent example, in 2024, an F-1 student visa overstay and an alien
released after illegally crossing the border and being issued a Notice
to Appear, posed as Amazon drivers and attempted to breach a Marine
Corps Base in what experts believe may have been a dry run for a
terrorist attack.\111\ DHS agrees that this rule will reduce status
violations (e.g., overstays), strengthen oversight, and yield
additional benefits to enhance the U.S. immigration system. DHS
believes that this rule establishes an effective mechanism to
periodically and directly assess whether nonimmigrants in F, J, and I
status are complying with the conditions of their nonimmigrant
classifications and U.S. immigration laws, and to obtain timely and
accurate information about the activities these aliens have engaged in
and plan to engage in during their temporary stay in the United States.
It will allow DHS to vet and screen aliens in these nonimmigrant
classifications for fraud, abuse, and security threats, and identify
aliens subject to inadmissibility and removability grounds. DHS
believes that this rule will encourage aliens to maintain lawful status
and reduce instances in which F, J, and I visa holders unlawfully
remain in the United States after their program, practical training, or
activities or assignments end. Furthermore, admitting individuals in
the F, J, and I visa classifications for a fixed period of time will
require those F, J, and I nonimmigrants who wish to remain in the
United States beyond their specifically authorized admission period to
apply for an EOS directly with USCIS. The other option of departing the
country and then applying for admission with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) at a POE has always been available to all
nonimmigrants whether on a fixed admission period or on D/S. Requiring
nonimmigrants who wish to stay in the United States longer than their
initial authorization without leaving the country to apply to USCIS for
an EOS will provide DHS with an additional mechanism to exercise the
oversight necessary to enforce our nation's immigration laws, protect
the integrity of these nonimmigrant programs, and promptly detect
national security concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Students or Spies? How China Infiltrated US Universities,
supra note 108; Winter, T., Chinese Couple Charged With Smuggling a
Biological Pathogen Into the U.S., supra note 108.
\111\ Ruiz, M., Jordanian Quantico Breach Suspect Freed Under
Biden Arrested Again by ICE: Report (Mar. 4, 2025), https://www.foxnews.com/us/jordanian-quantico-breach-suspect-freed-under-biden-arrested-again-ice-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Impacts on Schools, Higher Education, and Exchange Programs
Comments: In support of the rule, commenters stated the rule will
address inequities that American students and American workers face
resulting from abuses in these visa classifications and employer
incentives to hire foreign students. Multiple commenters remarked that
universities should give preference to American students and expressed
concern that foreign students are taking spots from more qualified
American students. A commenter remarked that extended stays by foreign
students artificially increase demand at universities. Commenters
stated that the rule will reduce tuition costs, open job markets for
Americans, open degree and course options for American students, by
reducing foreign student demand at universities and job-markets. Some
commenters view that the rule will also further protect institutions'
financial interests in intellectual property. In support of the rule,
commenters stated that the proposed rule would simplify compliance and
reporting requirements, including systems like SEVIS, reduce
administrative burden, enhance efficiency, and promote consistent
performance. A few commenters stated that the time limits were
necessary and benefit the institution because it will ensure students
perform consistently and are able to advance towards a higher level of
capability, resulting in equitable treatment across institutions and
participants. Commenters added that requiring extensions through DHS
would help safeguard the reputation of U.S. educational institutions
and exchange programs by ensuring participants remain engaged in
legitimate activities.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' support on this rule and
agrees that this rule will create these positive impacts on schools,
higher-education and exchange programs. DHS acknowledges that the D/S
framework is vulnerable to fraud, abuse (including overstays), and
other issues. DHS believes that this rule establishes an effective
mechanism to periodically and directly assess whether nonimmigrants in
F, J, and I status are complying with the conditions of their
nonimmigrant classifications and U.S. immigration laws, and to obtain
timely and accurate information about the activities these aliens have
engaged in and plan to engage in during their temporary stay in the
United States.
DHS notes that this rule is not intended to address whether foreign
students are taking opportunities away from American students/workers
and such issue is beyond the scope of this rule. DHS acknowledges the
valuable contribution of foreign students and exchange visitors but
also underscores that admission to the United States is not a
guarantee, and that all foreign nationals must be eligible and comply
[[Page 44991]]
with the terms and conditions of their status.
c. Impacts on U.S. Economy, Citizens, and Communities
Comments: Commenters generally supported the rule by discussing the
benefits to American students, students in general, workers, the
economy, American taxpayers and American culture. Commenters also
stated that the rule strengthens oversight and compliance, deters
exploitation, reinforces the U.S. immigration and education systems,
benefits both the U.S. institutions and U.S. workforce and levels the
playing field for all. Commenters supported limiting media
representatives from indefinitely residing and working in the United
States. Multiple commenters stated the benefits to American students
are with respect to employment, the job market, and educational
opportunities.
Response: DHS believes that this rule will strengthen oversight and
compliance, deter exploitation, and reinforce the credibility of the
U.S. immigration and education systems, thereby resulting in a positive
economic impact for all stakeholders, including foreign students and
U.S. students and workers. DHS believes that this rule will discourage
aliens who are not bona fide students, exchange visitors, and foreign
information media representatives from indefinitely residing and
working in the United States unlawfully in violation of their status.
The rule makes it clear that timely filed EOS will not guarantee an
extension for F, J, and I nonimmigrants, as such decisions are
discretionary and subject to eligibility and compliance with all
requirements in the rule.
DHS recognizes the contributions of foreign students and scholars
and believes that this rule will benefit all involved stakeholders,
including foreign students and American students and workers. Through
this rule, bona fide students will be able to focus entirely on their
studies and programs, consistent with their nonimmigrant
classifications. It will reduce the incentive of visa violators from
coming to the United States merely to work and reside unlawfully.
B. Opposition to the Proposed Rule
1. General Concerns and Opposition
Comments: Many commenters expressed concern with the changes
proposed in the rule. Numerous commenters expressed concern that the
proposed rule would negatively impact individuals, including
nonimmigrants and their families, as well as various sectors, including
higher education, medical centers, research institutions, and the U.S.
economy. Commenters expressed that this proposal imposes broad burdens
on individuals and institutions to address the issues of a relatively
small subset of foreign nationals who may overstay or fail to comply
with requirements. Some commenters expressed general opposition to the
rule without providing any rationale.
Many commenters expressed mixed views on the proposed rule. One
commenter expressed concern about the potential for regulatory
instability, stating that if DHS implements an overreaching rule, a
future liberal administration will reverse it. The commenter suggested
it is in DHS's best interest to adopt the least intrusive option to
ensure the rule can endure across administrations. Another commenter
stated that the rule fails to reduce overall visa issuance or entry
volume, as it does not address the high volume of F-1 visa issuances
abroad. Relatedly, one commenter suggested that foreign student numbers
would not be meaningfully reduced unless DHS and DoS apply stricter
standards at the consular level.
Expressing concern, a commenter discussed terminology used in the
proposed rule and differences between the roles of Principal Designated
School Officials (PDSOs), DSOs, ROs, and Alternative Responsible
Officers (AROs), suggesting the proposed rule reflected a concerning
lack of familiarity with these positions and their responsibilities.
Other commenters expressed concern that some changes and terms proposed
in the rule remain undefined, posing unanswered questions that would
force DSOs and ROs to interpret and solve problems independently.
Several commenters suggested clearly articulating best practices for
DSOs in policy guidance to ensure student compliance.
Another commenter stated that retroactive accrual of unlawful
presence could create a chilling effect and lead to large penalties for
unintentional violations due to the change in immigration requirements.
Response: As explained in this rule, DHS believes that this rule is
necessary to mitigate risks posed by aliens who seek to exploit the F,
J, and I nonimmigrant programs and live in the United States on a non-
temporary basis in contradiction with the underlying statutory language
that applies to their nonimmigrant status. The rule is designed to
provide additional protections and oversight of these nonimmigrant
classifications and allow DHS to better evaluate whether these
nonimmigrants are maintaining status while temporarily in the United
States. DHS has considered the interests and concerns of all relevant
stakeholders in this rule and has assessed the potential impact on the
economy and various stakeholders. See Final Regulatory Impact and
Flexibility Act Analysis, secs. IV.Q and R, and discussions below
regarding opposition to the rule based on impacts to specific
stakeholders. In balancing the interests of all parties, DHS has
determined that the goals of this rule outweigh these concerns.
DHS disagrees that the rule is overarching and notes that the
intent of the rule is not to reduce overall entry of foreign nationals.
All foreign students must maintain compliance with U.S. immigration
laws and providing them with a fixed period of admission and EOS
requirements will help to ensure such compliance, while also protecting
against fraud, abuse, and national security threats. This rule affords
immigration officers enough predetermined opportunities to directly
verify that aliens are engaging only in those activities their
respective classifications authorize while they are in the United
States, and, in turn, more effectively enforce compliance with the
immigration laws, enhancing national security, as well as monitor fraud
and abuse.
DHS understands that immigration law is complex and that changes
require additional training. DHS is committed to providing clear
guidance and training to all stakeholders and will issue detailed
implementation guidance and conduct outreach to ensure a smooth
transition and minimize disruption for students, exchange visitors,
institutions, and government personnel.
DHS does not agree that the proposed rule shows lack of familiarity
with the relevant positions discussed in the rule. DHS notes that this
rulemaking was the product of several agencies and subject matter
experts within the relevant fields of education who carefully drafted,
reviewed, and assessed the provisions of this rule. Furthermore, DHS
notes that even if there were any misuse in terminology in a few
sentences, such errors will not misinform or create confusion to the
public and will be merely clerical and immaterial to the substantive
issues addressed in this rule.
DHS understands all the changes that will have to be made to comply
with this proposed rule. To the extent that commenters indicated which
specific terms or proposed changes are at issue, DHS has provided
corresponding responses throughout this rule, under the applicable
sections. In addition,
[[Page 44992]]
DHS intends to provide training and guidance to DSOs and schools as the
rule is being implemented. DSOs and schools will also be able to
communicate with SEVP representatives. In addition, DHS will coordinate
with DoS to provide similar training/guidance to ROs and AROs and
program sponsors.
The primary aim of this final rule is to institute policies that
will encourage aliens to maintain lawful status and reduce instances in
which F, J, and I nonimmigrants unlawfully remain in the United States
after their program ends. Depending on the extent of unlawful presence
accrual, an alien may become inadmissible to the United States and
ineligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
Unlawful presence is much more difficult to ascertain for current D/S
holders and is usually determined only upon contact with immigration
officers and a review of compliance through SEVIS and other immigration
recordkeeping systems. Therefore, those maintaining their status
whether under the D/S system or the date certain system, are not
accruing unlawful presence.
2. Negative Impacts on Nonimmigrants and Support Systems
a. Allegations of Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Unfairness
Comments: Commenters remarked that the proposed rule is xenophobic,
racist, or discriminatory, or that it furthers attitudes of xenophobia
or racism towards nonimmigrants. In looking to the proposed rule, one
commenter pointed to Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944),
to ``remind us that discriminatory practices have long-term
consequences.'' Another commenter stated that the approach under the
proposed rule would be unfair and discriminatory to foreign students as
DHS had not provided statistical evidence that foreign students have
abused the system. Commenters asserted that the proposed rule would
affect nonimmigrants disproportionately to DHS's concerns. Commenters
stated that nonimmigrants are already among the most monitored groups
in the United States. One commenter pointed to analysis from the Cato
Institute \112\ which found that the annual probability of being
attacked by a terrorist who came into the United States on a student
visa was only 1 in 72.8 million. A commenter stated that the rule
disproportionately harms students from China and India, who already
face decades-long green card backlogs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ The commenter referenced Cato Institute, Foreign Students
Are Not a Serious National Security Threat, https://www.cato.org/blog/foreign-students-are-not-serious-national-security-threat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions that the
rule is xenophobic, racist, discriminatory, or that it furthers such
attitudes towards nonimmigrants, or that it disproportionately harm
students from specific countries. DHS welcomes F academic students, J
exchange visitors, and I representatives of information media, and
acknowledges that many have made valuable contributions to the United
States. However, DHS also acknowledges that the sheer size of the
population complicates oversight and vetting functions. The significant
increase in the volume of F academic students, J exchange visitors, and
I representatives of information media poses a challenge to DHS's
ability to monitor and oversee these nonimmigrants while they are in
the United States, increasing the vulnerabilities for fraud, abuse, and
national security threats.
Notably, replacing admissions for D/S with admissions for a fixed
period of authorized stay and implementing EOS requirements are
consistent with the regulations of most other nonimmigrant
classifications. This rule does not discriminate against F, J, and I
nonimmigrants but rather aligns the requirements of their status to
other nonimmigrant categories. As indicated in the preamble of the
proposed rule, a goal of this rule is to institute policies that will
encourage aliens to maintain lawful status and reduce instances in
which F, J, and I nonimmigrants unlawfully remain in the United States
after their program, practical training, or activities or assignments
consistent with their classification ends. The rule creates an
effective mechanism for DHS to periodically and directly assess whether
these nonimmigrants are complying with the conditions of their
classifications and U.S. immigration laws, as well as allow DHS to
obtain timely and accurate information about the activities they have
engaged in and plan to engage in during their temporary stay in the
United States. Furthermore, aliens seeking F-1 visas must demonstrate
intent to return to their home country. Therefore, there should be no
impact on the permanent resident process.
DHS also notes that the rule has provided sufficient data and
reasoning to support the need for this rule.\113\ In the preamble to
the proposed rule, DHS provided specific cases and examples of fraud,
national security, and nonimmigrant students remaining in the United
States for lengthy periods of time under the D/S framework, and DHS's
intent and rationale. For further explanation, commenters should refer
to the preamble of the proposed rule.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ The need for the rulemaking in the NPRM cited extensive
data. DHS makes a few minor corrections to that information in this
final rule. First, DHS corrects footnote 56 in the NPRM, which cited
to the 1997 U.S. Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. That citation should have referenced Tbl. 39
on pages 118-19 rather than only referencing pg. 118. Second, in
footnote 111 of the NPRM DHS stated it identified 2,134 aliens who
first entered as F-1 students between 2000 and 2010 and remain in
active F-1 status today by reviewing SEVIS data as of Apr. 4, 2025.
DHS corrects this statement to indicate that DHS identified 2,137
active F-1 students who began studying between 2000 and 2010 by
reviewing SEVIS data as of Apr. 6, 2025. Third, DHS notes the
following statement in the NPRM is supported by SEVIS Data on
Initial Transfers and Change of Education Counts (Mar. 31, 2025):
``Since 2020, there have been over 13,000 F-1 students who
transferred before the start of classes or within their first term,
including over 4,400 students transferring from a higher education
to English language training program of study within their first
term or session of a program of study. The number of F-1 students
who changed their educational levels within the first 60 days of
their program is close to 8,400.'' Finally, DHS notes DHS analyzed
the SEVIS data which was valid as of May 7, 2025.
\114\ 90 FR 42070 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Disproportionate Impacts on Vulnerable Groups
Comments: Commenters also noted how different groups and immigrant
communities may be affected. Some commenters added that the overly
broad and strict nature of the rule would disproportionately harm
legitimate foreign students nationwide, particularly affecting first-
generation and low and middle-income individuals from developing
nations. One commenter noted that the proposed rule would have
disparate impacts on students from countries with fewer visa options,
creating a system of inequity. Similarly, a commenter noted that the
rule's impacts would be felt inequitably, with applicants from areas
facing slow processing times, conflict, or disaster, facing higher
denial risks. Another commenter claimed that international students are
uniquely at risk of abuse from their academic advisors in the form of
harassment and disproportionate workloads because of their current
limited ability to find new advisors or otherwise resolve the
situation.
A commenter suggested that DHS should not attribute system failures
to foreign students, noting their strong work ethic and study habits
compared to native-born students. One commenter stated that the shift
to fixed admission
[[Page 44993]]
periods for F, J, and I visa holders could also harm neurodiverse
individuals who may require flexibility in their academic studies,
``late bloomers or career switchers'' who need to pivot to a new field
or level of education, and journalists whose work may be impacted by
their unpredictable work cycles. Separately, a commenter remarked that
the lack of opportunities for international entrepreneurs to take part
in the United States due to this rule would negatively impact domestic
minority and low-income groups who rely on the tech industry for jobs
and social mobility.
Response: DHS disagrees with the comments regarding the
disproportionate impact on foreign and domestic students of certain
backgrounds or conditions and notes that the assertions in the comments
are not supported by any specific data or research that relate to the
provisions of this rule. DHS does acknowledge the unique needs of
neurodiverse individuals, students who may need to change academic
paths, and journalists with unpredictable work cycles. In developing
this rule, DHS has sought to balance program integrity and national
security with the need to maintain access and flexibility for
legitimate students and exchange visitors. The rule allows F, J, and I
visa holders to apply for an EOS, including allowing students to
request an EOS in cases of compelling academic reasons, documented
illness or medical conditions, and circumstances beyond the applicant's
control, which may include conflict, disaster, or other significant
hardships. If an applicant is eligible, they will be able to continue
to stay in the United States. This rule will provide DHS with
additional protections and mechanisms to exercise the oversight
necessary to enforce our nation's immigration laws. Separately, DHS
notes that notwithstanding this rule, students continue to have the
option of applying for employment authorization for on-campus and off-
campus employment (including due to severe economic hardship) and
practical training, should they meet the requirements. With respect to
the changes this rule purports to make for entrepreneurs, DHS is not
changing any of its policies on the ability of, for example, F-1
students being able to start their own businesses as part of the OPT
program.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See SEVP's web page, Training Opportunities in the United
States, https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/students/training-opportunities-in-the-united-states (last visited Feb. 4, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the potential for harassment, DHS condemns all
forms of harassment and abuse. While DHS does not directly regulate
academic advising relationships, DHS encourages students who experience
harassment, abuse, or unfair treatment to report these issues to their
institution's administration or other appropriate campus resources. DHS
will continue to work with educational institutions to promote
awareness of student rights and available resources, including the fact
that this rule does not prevent a student from changing advisors.
c. Uncertainty and Complexity for Nonimmigrants
Comments: Commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would
introduce uncertainty and complexity for prospective or existing
nonimmigrants in the affected visa categories. Commenters explained
that the proposed rule would unnecessarily burden and stress
nonimmigrants, especially students, potentially undermining their
educational, employment, or research experiences in the United States.
One commenter noted that, if finalized, the rule would serve as a
barrier to many nonimmigrant students who are hoping to study in the
United States. Another commenter noted that former F-1 students who are
now employed could experience uncertainty, delays, or complications
regarding renewals or employer-sponsored visa transitions. One
commenter expressed concern with how additional layers of bureaucracy,
such as the need to request extensions, the collection of biometric
data, and fixed admission periods, would create additional barriers for
individuals. Commentators noted that the added requirement to apply for
an extension or a slow adjudication process at the end of a term may
also increase the risk for students to accrue unlawful presence. For
higher education, one commenter noted that ``the proposed rule would
fundamentally alter a well-established understanding between students
and schools'' and would break down confidence due to colleges and
universities being unable to guarantee completion.
Commenters who identified as foreign students also shared personal
experiences and concerns and voiced that the proposed rule feels
punitive to students and poses pressure and barriers to students.
Commenters also expressed concern that administrative and technical
errors could cause students to fall out of status through no fault of
their own, and minor errors could trigger muti-year bars to reentry.
Commenters were also concerned about reduced flexibility in the
proposed rule, suggesting it could violate principles of academic
freedom and potentially be considered discriminatory. Relatedly, some
commenters noted that MBA and LLM programs often attract mid-career
professionals who already face significant financial and logistical
challenges while highlighting how the imposition of additional USCIS
filings every 2-4 years adds unnecessary bureaucracy and costs.
Commenters indicated they are currently seeing countless students
lose OPT eligibility due to filing mistakes. They expressed concern
that under this rule, similar errors would proliferate due to the
volume of filings surging. The commenters further added that when a
filing is rejected after the status has lapsed, students often cannot
cure the gap, need to stop studying or working, and in some cases,
never regain the ability to return to school or work. Given the sheer
scale of new I-539 submissions contemplated by this rule, the
commenters expressed concern about a dramatic increase of students
losing their status.
Response: DHS appreciates these concerns associated with all the
changes that will have to be made to comply with this rule and
understands the uncertainties that may generally follow when
regulations change and adjustments need to be made.
To alleviate concerns regarding these changes, DHS intends to make
training available to DSOs so that they and the foreign students they
advise will be ready for the transition. DHS included familiarization
and adaptation time burdens for DSOs in the Final Rule Regulatory
Impact Analysis and increased the time estimates based on public
comments on these burdens. As explained in the NPRM, the D/S framework
generally lacks predetermined points in time for USCIS or CBP
immigration officers to directly evaluate whether F and J nonimmigrants
are maintaining their status and poses a challenge to DHS's ability to
effectively monitor and oversee these categories of nonimmigrants.
Furthermore, SEVIS allows DHS to identify certain status violations
that have been detected and reported by a DSO or that result from the
failure of a DSO or student to take certain actions in connection with
the SEVIS record. Under the D/S framework, fraud or status violations
that are undetected or unreported by a DSO may result in a student
inaccurately being reported as maintaining status in SEVIS for many
years past the status violation or fraud being committed. Furthermore,
under the D/S framework an alien who no longer meets the statutory
definition of
[[Page 44994]]
an F-1 student may improperly remain in F-1 status because DSOs do not
make determinations regarding statutory eligibility for the F-1
classification.
DHS respectfully disagrees with the assertions that the rule
unnecessarily burdens nonimmigrants or penalizes them. F, J, and I
nonimmigrants will now have the same requirements as the vast majority
of other nonimmigrants. DHS disagrees with the contention that
administrative errors will lead to multi-year bars on entry. As
discussed elsewhere in this rule, USCIS can excuse minor lapses for
legitimate reasons. Also, multi-year bars begin only after 180 days of
unlawful presence in the United States. Waiting in the United States
for USCIS to complete adjudication of a timely filed EOS application
after expiration of a nonimmigrant's current I-94 admit until date
(AUD) is allowed with no unlawful presence accruing.
DHS does not believe that this final rule will serve as a barrier
preventing nonimmigrant students from wanting to study in the United
States based on the quality and diversity of educational opportunities
available in this country. DHS emphasizes that the rule does not
interfere with the ability of universities and students to engage in
lawful academic activities. The rule is focused on immigration
compliance and does not impose restrictions on the content, scope, or
nature of academic programs or research. DHS believes that the proposed
rule is consistent with its statutory obligations. As explained in the
rule, the changes promulgated in this rule are necessary to strengthen
the U.S. immigration system and fix the vulnerabilities associated with
the D/S framework. While DHS recognizes that this rule may result in
adjustments for nonimmigrants and institutions, these measures are
intended to provide sufficient flexibility for nonimmigrant students to
complete their programs and pursue additional opportunities while
maintaining compliance with immigration laws. Accordingly, DHS believes
that the benefits of establishing clear time limits and enhancing
compliance monitoring outweigh any potential challenges or burdens
associated with the rule.
With respect to commenters regarding F-1 students facing
complications regarding renewals or employer-sponsored visa
transitions, DHS believes that the transition period regulations will
alleviate some of the concerns by existing students who are currently
in practical training programs. Furthermore, the implementation period
of the rule will provide sufficient time and notice for other F-1
students to make changes as necessary to comply with the new
regulations in the final rule. DHS notes that employment is not the
primary purpose of the F-1 student classification.
DHS expects that the rule will not have a significant impact on
participation of other J exchange visitors or I representatives of
information media, as the number of J and I EOS requests is small
compared to the overall J and I visa populations. See Final Regulatory
Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, secs. IV.Q and R. DHS
notes that equivalent U.S.-based exchange visitor programs (outside of
academia) may be more difficult to find in other countries, providing
less of an incentive for nonimmigrants to choose an alternative over
U.S. programs.
d. Training and Job Prospects for Students
Comments: Commenters also expanded on issues related to current
training and job prospects for foreign students who would be impacted
by the proposed rule. Commenters expressed concern that the proposed
rule would make it more difficult for foreign students to apply for
practical training opportunities. One commenter expressed concern with
how the proposed rule would impact CPT and extensions and provided an
example of one individual who had maintained lawful status through Day-
1 CPT, but whose status would be jeopardized if the proposed rule went
into effect. Commenters also noted that F visa holders may have more
limited employment opportunities due to additional costs to employers
resulting from this rule, coupled with the H-1B cap limits. Relatedly,
another spoke about how the proposed rule would create confusion with
the H-1B ``cap-gap'' framework that was recently extended by USCIS and
would lead to an increase in edge-case failures (lapses between EAD,
EOS adjudication, travel, and I-94 dates) and undermine the cap-gap
protections DHS created.
Response: This rule does not make any substantive changes to OPT
and CPT other than in the context of admission and extensions and does
not make any changes to the H-1B cap gap rule. DHS notes that CPT,
which is part of a student's academic program, must be completed within
the authorized period of admission. Similarly, OPT may be completed
within the authorized period unless the student opts for post-
completion OPT, in which case an EOS or readmission at a POE will
probably be necessary. If students need additional time to complete
their program beyond the authorized period, they must apply directly to
USCIS for EOS or, if they choose to travel, they can (with an unexpired
visa) apply for admission at a POE through CBP and receive a new I-94
with a new AUD. As explained in the preamble, this practice comports
with the regulations of many other nonimmigrant classifications. For
current students engaging in CPT or OPT, DHS notes that the transition
period regulations will provide continuity and mitigate any disruption
on their programs, as explained at length in the preamble of the
proposed rule.\116\ With respect to F-1 nonimmigrant employment
prospectives, DHS notes that the F-1 student classification is not for
the primary purpose of employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ See 90 FR at 42084 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Families and Dependents
Comments: Commenters also spoke of the destabilizing effects of the
new changes on students and their families. Commenters mentioned the
impacts this rule could have on immigrant families that could lead to
forced separation of married or engaged couples, stating that alien
members of such couples can currently remain in student status while
awaiting USCIS action. A commenter stated foreign students are
currently able to remain in status while married or engaged and waiting
USCIS action and they were concerned the rule would lead to forced
separation of married or engaged couples in these instances.
Response: DHS acknowledges the concerns regarding the potential
impacts of the proposed rule on students and their families, including
the risk of separation for married and engaged couples if one of those
individuals is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, but the
other is an F, J, or I nonimmigrant. DHS notes the primary purpose of
the F nonimmigrant classification is to allow foreign nationals to
pursue a full course of study at a U.S. academic institution, and it is
not meant to be a bridge to permanent resident status. Similarly, the J
and I nonimmigrant categories hold specific purposes and are not meant
to be a bridge to permanent residency. While DHS acknowledges that F,
J, and I nonimmigrants and their families may experience uncertainty
during the EOS process, the rule is designed to ensure that these
nonimmigrants and their dependents maintain lawful status and comply
with U.S. immigration laws. This rule does not change any of the
regulations, policies, or procedures for those who have applied for an
adjustment of status
[[Page 44995]]
based on marriage to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Further, the rule does not change the long-standing rules that
allow dependents to accompany or follow to join principal aliens in F,
J, and I nonimmigrant classifications. In addition, aliens in F, J, or
I status, who properly file an EOS application with USCIS, may remain
in the United States while the EOS is pending, and their dependents
will also need to file EOS to remain with the principal applicant. The
rule maintains existing requirements for dependents and does not
introduce new barriers to family unity.
In order to minimize disruptions caused by delays in processing by
USCIS, the rule allows F-1 nonimmigrants who timely file an EOS to
continue to pursue a full course of study for the entire time their EOS
is pending with USCIS after their authorized period of admission
expires. Authorization for certain types of authorized employment for
F-1s is also extended for a period of 240 days after the expiration of
stay in these circumstances. These provisions help to prevent
interruptions in the activities of these nonimmigrants.
J-1 nonimmigrants may continue authorized training while an EOS
application is pending with USCIS. Specifically, J-1s who have properly
filed an EOS may engage in the activities consistent with pursuing the
terms and conditions of the exchange program objectives, including
authorized training, for the entire time the EOS is pending. Those who
are employed incident to their status may continue to work, beginning
on the day after the admission period expires and as long as they
applied for the EOS prior to the expiration of the admission period,
for a period of up to 240 days as provided in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20).
It is the responsibility of the alien to maintain status while in
the United States. DHS does not believe it is unreasonable to require
aliens temporarily in the United States to file for an extension with
USCIS for the alien to remain beyond their authorized period of stay,
so that the U.S. government can confirm compliance with U.S.
immigration laws. Additionally, this requirement is consistent with the
extension filing requirements for other nonimmigrant categories,
including B-1/B-2s, H-1Bs, H-2s, L-1s, and TNs, to name but a few.
3. Negative Impacts on the Immigration System and Policy Objectives
a. Purpose and Need for Rulemaking
Comments: Numerous commenters argued that DHS had failed to provide
sufficient evidence that the current D/S framework leads to widespread
noncompliance, fraud, or abuse. They stated that DHS relied on
anecdotal examples and isolated cases rather than comprehensive data
demonstrating systemic problems to justify the call for significant
policy change. Commenters expressed that the rule did not draw a
rational connection between alleged systemic fraud and abuse within the
student visa program and the proposed changes, and that the proposed
rule is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Others questioned
how limiting the period of admission and requiring additional Form I-
539 burden on students would address fraud or abuse. A commenter
remarked that the NPRM lacks evidence demonstrating that eliminating D/
S would have prevented any of the cited security incidents. The
commenters continued stating that DHS overstated the justification of
misuse and that the current system provides adequate oversight without
imposing new burdens.
Commenters specifically highlighted the lack of evidence for abuse
in the affected nonimmigrant categories. Commenters said that the
increased burden on F-1 students is a stark contrast to the small
amount of abuse. Multiple commenters stated that DHS provided no
evidence of visa overstays specific to J-1 physicians, who they
described as carefully vetted, monitored, and supervised. Commenters
acknowledged the seriousness of examples cited by DHS, such as those
from the NIH study, but questioned how requiring J-1 exchange visitors
to file extension paperwork with USCIS would mitigate these issues.
Similarly, many commenters noted that DHS provided no evidence of abuse
or fraud in the I visa category for foreign journalists, with some
suggesting that DHS justified including the I visa category using
parity arguments rather than finding evidence of fraud and abuse.
Commenters expressed concern that changes to the I visa might be
politically motivated, as DHS did not identify compliance problems with
this visa category.
Response: DHS disagrees with the general premise of these comments.
While DHS provided specific examples of fraud, national security
concerns, and nonimmigrant students remaining in the United States for
lengthy periods of time under the D/S framework, DHS's intent and
rationale for this rulemaking was explained in detail in the proposed
rule's preamble. Such concerns, as highlighted in the NPRM, demonstrate
the fraud, national security, and other issues associated with the D/S
framework. In the preamble to the proposed rule, DHS pointed out that
admission for D/S does not afford immigration officers enough
predetermined opportunities to directly verify that aliens granted such
nonimmigrant statuses are engaging only in those activities their
respective classifications authorize while they are in the United
States. This has undermined DHS's ability to effectively enforce
compliance with statutory inadmissibility grounds related to unlawful
presence and has created national security vulnerabilities and
incentives for fraud and abuse. DHS believes that this rule will
provide DHS with the mechanisms to address some of the concerns
surrounding the integrity of F, J, and I programs.
With respect to J classifications, DHS indicated that the national
security risks posed by D/S admissions for individuals admitted under
the J classification are similar to those posed by the F
classification.\117\ DHS provided examples of several cases involving
J-1 students involved in fraud and espionage, demonstrating the fraud,
national security, and other issues associated with the D/S framework.
As noted by several commenters, DHS cited a report prepared by a panel
of experts commissioned by the NIH to study foreign influence on
federally-funded scientific research, which stated that ``[s]mall
numbers of scientists have committed serious violations of NIH policies
and systems by not disclosing foreign support (i.e., grants),
laboratories, or funded faculty positions in other countries.'' \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See 90 FR at 42079 (Aug. 28, 2025).
\118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with F nonimmigrants, setting the length of the J nonimmigrant's
specific program to not exceed a 4-year period will establish a
mechanism for immigration officers to assess these nonimmigrants at
defined periods (such as when applying for an EOS in the United States
beyond a 4-year admission period) and determine whether the J-1
nonimmigrants are complying with the conditions of their
classification. This will increase vetting of the J nonimmigrant
population, which will help to prevent and deter nefarious actors. DHS
believes that this rule will enhance DHS's ability to detect fraud,
abuse, and national security
[[Page 44996]]
issues as well as take preventive action to secure the nation.
With respect to I nonimmigrant visas, DHS recognizes the lack of
public data cited in the proposed rule regarding fraud and overstays
specific to I nonimmigrants. However, DHS disagrees with the general
premise of these comments. The vulnerabilities generally associated
with the D/S admission are not unique to F and J nonimmigrant
classifications, and the lack of public data for the I nonimmigrant
classification does not mean that the vulnerabilities are absent for
that classification. As explained in the preamble of the NPRM and in
this final rule, one of the goals of this rule is to strengthen vetting
and information collection and help immigration officers ensure that
the I nonimmigrants are, and will be, engaged in activities that are
permissible under INA 101(a)(15)(I), and do not pose national security
issues (in addition to the F and J nonimmigrant classifications). As
previously mentioned, DHS believes that admitting aliens temporarily in
the United States for a fixed period will encourage aliens to maintain
lawful status and prevent or reduce instances in which nonimmigrants
unlawfully remain in the United States after their activities or
assignments end.
b. National Security Justification
Comments: Commenters challenged the national security
justification, stating the proposed rule failed to establish widespread
security concerns under the current system. These commenters noted that
DHS cited only a few isolated cases of espionage, or fraud, that had
already been detected, and prosecuted, under existing laws and
monitoring systems. Commenters expressed concern that DHS conflated
suspected immigration abuse or fraud with national security concerns
and suggested that legitimate concerns around espionage should be
addressed through law enforcement and national security mechanisms.
Similarly, one commenter noted that the solution for national
security concerns set forth by the government is overbroad, and there
are already mechanisms which can meet the goals desired, such as
revoking an individual's status. While acknowledging DHS has legitimate
national security concerns to enforce immigration law, protect the
integrity of F-1 and J-1 visa programs, and detect national security
issues, a commenter did not agree that the current proposed solutions
would meet these aims. Instead, the commenter stated that the proposed
rule does not ``account for the vital national security interest of
retaining this talent pipeline of international STEM experts'' which
even Congress asked the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and
Medicine to study as part of the National Defense Authorization Act
(for 2023).
Commenters warned that the proposed rule might undermine national
security by potentially reducing American innovation and competitive
edge, thus increasing security risks through greater turnover under the
proposed fixed period, or inviting retaliation against U.S. journalists
working abroad. Likewise, a commenter posited that pushing
international doctoral students and researchers to competitor countries
would be a greater national security risk than the benefits that DHS
put forth in the proposed rule. Another commenter called for a more
targeted approach to national security concerns in which DHS would
follow up with students or scholars who are terminated by a DSO for
violating their status or work with the FBI to remove Chinese scholars
who are part of the Military-Civil Fusion strategy.
Lastly, a commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule would
inadvertently result in less oversight in ensuring that foreign
students, once admitted, actually participate or progress in their
program by turning F or J visas into ``4 years to do whatever you
want'' visas rather than ongoing monitoring under the current rule,
thereby defeating the purpose of the rule.
Response: DHS disagrees with the general premise of these comments
regarding the lack of national security justifications. In the preamble
to the proposed rule, DHS pointed out that admission for D/S, in
general, does not afford immigration officers enough predetermined
opportunities to directly verify that aliens granted such nonimmigrant
statuses are engaging only in those activities their respective
classifications authorize while they are in the United States. This has
undermined DHS's ability to effectively enforce compliance with the
statutory inadmissibility grounds related to unlawful presence and has
created national security vulnerabilities and incentives for fraud and
abuse.
The vulnerabilities presented in the nonimmigrant student
classification have been continuously highlighted by the FBI over the
years. In a 2018 hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the
FBI Director testified about the threat from China, noting that the use
of ``nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting,
whether it's professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every
field office that the FBI has around the country.'' The Director
further stated as follows: ``It's not just in major cities. It's in
small ones as well. It's across basically every discipline. I think the
level of naivet[eacute] on the part of the academic sector about this
creates its own issues. They're exploiting the very open research and
development environment that we have, which we all revere, but they're
taking advantage of it. So, one of the things we're trying to do is
view the China threat as not just a whole of government threat, but a
whole of society threat on their end. I think it's going to take a
whole of society response by us. So, it's not just the intelligence
community, but it's raising awareness within our academic sector,
within our private sector, as part of the defense.'' \119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ See Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing,
Worldwide Threats (Feb. 13, 2018), supra note 82. See also Statement
of Louis A. Rodi III), supra note 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, in 2022, in response to a Congressional inquiry, GAO
investigated and made recommendations that ICE modify the SEVIS system
to include factors that potentially indicate which foreign students or
scholars may pose more risk of transferring technology at U.S.
universities due to the national security concerns.\120\ Given the
mounting reports and assessments flagging the issues of national
security and vulnerabilities, it is hard to justify maintaining the D/S
admission framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ See GAO 23-106114, supra note 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separately, DHS is unable to determine whether the rule will result
in a significant decline in foreign talent, nor anticipate a
significant reduction in the economic benefits associated with foreign
students within the U.S. economy at large. DHS asserts that U.S.
educational institutions will continue to attract foreign students
because U.S. institutions offer a high-quality education. Since any
enrollment decline is uncertain, downstream economic activities such as
employment and productivity are not feasible to quantify due to the
various factors.
Additionally, DHS disagrees that the rule will hamper DHS goals and
result in less oversight. Furthermore, the rule does not provide a
four-year admission for all F and J nonimmigrants. Instead, the rule
establishes an admission period up to the program length, not to exceed
a 4-year period. If the program of study or exchange program is shorter
than 4 years, the nonimmigrant will be
[[Page 44997]]
admitted for less than 4 years, i.e., up to the program length. If the
program is longer than 4 years, the rule requires nonimmigrants to
apply for EOS, which is subject to USCIS adjudication. Those who wish
to stay in the United States longer without leaving the country can
apply to USCIS for EOS, which will provide DHS with additional
mechanisms to exercise the oversight necessary to enforce our nation's
immigration laws, protect the integrity of these nonimmigrant programs,
and promptly detect national security concerns. This may include
conducting background checks and collecting biometrics and other
information from the nonimmigrants. As explained in the proposed rule,
DHS believes that replacing admission for D/S for F-1 students with
admission for a fixed time period will help mitigate fraud, overstays,
and national security risks by ensuring an immigration official
directly and periodically vets applicants for extensions of stay and,
in so doing, confirms they are engaged only in activities consistent
with their student status.
Notably, this rule does not change the SEVP certified schools'
existing requirements that provide additional oversight of the foreign
students. SEVP certified schools continue to have reporting
requirements regarding the students' enrollment, attendance, transfer,
completion of the program, etc., and must make such updates in SEVIS
within 21 days of the change. See 8 CFR 214.3. If a student is admitted
for 4 years to complete a program of study but fails to attend school,
the SEVP certified school will be required to report this information
in SEVIS. The student will be considered to have failed to maintain
status and will be subject to grounds of removability.
However, DHS believes that the existing monitoring and vetting
efforts are not exclusive mechanisms nor the only approach for
strengthening the F, J, and I nonimmigrant classifications. In fact,
the screening and vetting efforts undertaken by other agencies and
departments, as well as agencies within DHS, should be a collaborative
effort that further strengthens national security and the integrity of
the U.S. immigration system. Moreover, for the reasons explained in the
rule, DHS believes that a fixed admission period and EOS requirements
will specifically enhance the integrity of the F, J, and I nonimmigrant
classification.
c. DHS Overstay Data
Comments: Commenters also expressed concern with the data DHS
provided and questioned whether it accurately captured the issues that
DHS wants to rectify with the proposed rule. Some commenters contended
that the overstay data put forward by DHS was incomplete or inaccurate
to support the changes in the rule. Multiple commenters said that given
the low number of overstays, the proposed rule lacks evidentiary
support or justification. Along those lines, commenters stated that the
rule was a disproportionate overcorrection to a relatively small number
of overstays, adding that this small number did not justify a wholesale
change that would affect academic institutions, along with millions of
compliant students. A commenter noted that foreign students, overall,
are a highly compliant population, with DHS data showing the overstay
rate for F, M, and J visa holders to be 3.67 percent for FY 2023.
Specifically, commenters noted that the 2,100 overstays referenced
in the proposed rule are relatively small in comparison to the total
population of foreign students in the United States, which they stated
as over 3 million, citing various sources. Along those lines, another
commenter noted that the issue of ``the perpetual student'' was smaller
than what was stated by DHS, as only 2,100 individuals of the 1,582,808
active SEVIS records were listed as still being in an active F-1 status
after entering as an F-1 student between 2000 and 2010.\121\ Another
commenter stated the cited 2,100 cases of aliens remaining on F-1 visas
for over 10 years is 0.1 percent of the 1.6 million F visa holders
admitted in 2023, or 0.8 percent of the 260,000 admitted in 1980 but
did not provide any sources or citations. Another commenter noted the
statistics for the past decade reflect a 2-4 percent overstay rate,
depending on the country and outside factors, and that 5 percent is not
statistically material according to Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles in the U.S. (GAAP).\122\ One commenter noted that current
data shows F-1 visa holders have a low 1.5 percent overstay rate
compared to a 6.6 percent overstay rate for B-1/B-2 visas. A commenter
referenced Open Doors data, saying over 81 percent of foreign students
in the U.S. come from the top 20 countries of origin for students, and
most of these countries have very low overstay rates.\123\ Some
commenters referenced CBP's Entry/Exit Overstay Report from fiscal year
2024, stating the 2.45 percent overstay rate for F, M, and J visa
holders demonstrates the system's effectiveness and means 97.55 percent
of international students maintain legal status and comply with visa
requirements.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ The commenter referenced ICE's 2024 SEVIS by the Numbers
Report, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/btn/25_0605_2024-sevis-btn.pdf.
\122\ The commenter referenced https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/24_1011_CBP-Entry-Exit-Overstay-Report-FY23-Data.pdf.
\123\ The commenter referenced Institute of International
Education, Open Doors: Fast Facts 2024, https://opendoorsdata.org/fact_sheets/fast-facts/. See also CBP, Entry/Exit Overstay Report:
Fiscal Year 2024 Report to Congress (July 16, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/25_0826_cbp_entry-exit-overstay-report-fiscal-year-2024.pdf.
\124\ Entry/Exit Overstay Report: Fiscal Year 2024, supra note
123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters pointed to various issues regarding DHS overstay
data. A commenter pointed to a forensic analysis by the National
Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) which had concluded that DHS
methodology is flawed.\125\ The commenter stated that the DHS `overstay
rate' is not a measure of illegal presence but an `upper-bound
estimate' that fails to account for timely departures that were not
recorded and lawful changes of status. The commenter further stated
that the NFAP analysis shows the `suspected' overstay rate for students
and exchange visitors dropping by as much as 42 percent over time as
the government's own data is reconciled. The commenter concluded that a
sweeping, punitive policy on such unreliable and inflated statistics is
irresponsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ The commenter referenced International Students Contribute
Record-breaking Level. . . . NAFSA, reportedly accessed August 30,
2025, https://www.nafsa.org/about/about-nafsa/international-students-contribute-record-breaking-level-spending-and-378000-jobs
and National Foundation for American Policy--NFAP, reportedly
accessed August 30, 2025, https://nfap.com/studies/an-analysis-of-the-dhs-overstay-reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, commenters added that DHS reports of overstay rates are
inflated. Commenters also noted that overall overstay rates, in all
student and exchange visitor visa categories, have fallen in recent
years. Commenters stated DHS cites program integrity concerns but does
not provide evidence that the existing D/S framework is broadly
ineffective and without clear data showing systemic abuse, imposing
such sweeping structural changes seems premature. Commenters remarked
that DHS did not provide evidence that the overstay numbers reflected
individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States. Commenters
stated that DHS did not consider legitimate reasons why students might
remain in F-1 status for extended periods, such as pursuing multiple
academic degrees or certifications, participating in OPT, or a result
of research-related delays. Other commenters noted that students whose
academic career in the United States
[[Page 44998]]
had spanned from high school to a doctoral program would be included in
the list of 2,100 and viewed as a potential abuse case, despite
remaining compliant within the laws and intent of the policy. A
commenter suggested that additional data analysis would be necessary to
determine if nonimmigrants maintaining an F-1 visa status for an
extended duration should be regarded as non-compliant or impermissible.
Commenters stated that DHS's Entry/Exit Overstay Reports contained
significant methodological issues that inflated overstay numbers.
Commenters further stated that these reports counted as individuals who
had lawfully changed status, adjusted to permanent residency, or
departed the United States but whose exits were not properly recorded
as ``overstays.'' Commenters cited DHS's FY 2023 Entry/Exit Overstay
Report showing that the in-country overstay rate for F, M, and J visa
holders was around 3 percent.\126\ Meaning that over 97 percent of
students and exchange visitors complied with immigration requirements.
Similarly, a commenter cited a 2020 DHS report indicating that 1.21
percent of all F, M, and J nonimmigrants overstayed their visa
duration; the commenter reasoned that the current system is therefore
effective, and the proposed rule is unwarranted.\127\ One commenter
stated that F, J, and M visa holders represented only about 9.7 percent
of all suspected in-country overstays for FY 2023, with over 90 percent
of suspected overstays coming from other nonimmigrant categories,
primarily short-term visitor visas.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Commenters referenced CBP, Entry/Exit Overstay Report
Fiscal Year 2024 Report to Congress (July 16, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/25_0826_cbp_entry-exit-overstay-report-fiscal-year-2024.pdf.
\127\ The commenter referenced https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0513_fy19-entry-and-exit-overstay-report.pdf.
\128\ The commenter referenced https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/24_1011_CBP-Entry-Exit-Overstay-Report-FY23-Data.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, a commenter stated that DHS's data systems frequently
lag in reconciling departures, resulting in overstay rates being
overreported, until these systems update to show the accurate overstay
rate. Commenters cited research, by demographer Robert Warren and the
NFAP, stating that more than half of reported ``overstays'' had
actually departed the country. \129\ However, these departures were not
recorded as such. Another commenter expressed concern with overstay
data from DHS due to errors and gaps in the system. The commenter
pointed out multiple instances where arrival or departure dates were
not captured accurately by CBP in SEVIS, and the data did not have
specific data categories for how many individuals departed the United
States within a few days, a week, or a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ The commenters referenced Anserdson, S. Forbes, USCIS Uses
Questionable 'Overstay' Report To Justify Policies, June 6, 2018,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/06/06/uscis-uses-questionable-overstay-report-to-justify-policies/#43b77c466e74;
Warren, R., Journal on Migration and Human Security, DHS
Overestimates Visa Overstays for 2016; and Overstay Population
Growth Near Zero During the Year, Nov. 4, 2017, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/233150241700500403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A comment criticized that DHS did not provide data on J-1 Exchange
Visitors and stated that the proposed rule should have excluded
professor and research scholar categories, who are limited to program
duration of five years maximum; short-term scholars limited to program
duration of six months maximum; and specialists limited to program
duration of one year maximum.
Response: DHS disagrees with the general premise of these comments.
The purpose and need for the rule does not merely hinge on the number
of overstays alone. DHS provided overstay statistics, coupled with
cases of fraud, national security concerns, and nonimmigrant students
remaining in the United States for lengthy periods of time, which
viewed wholistically, underscore the need for this rule. Such concerns,
as highlighted in the NPRM, demonstrate the fraud, national security,
and other issues associated with the D/S framework. The rule provides
compelling cases of fraud, abuse, and national security concerns, and
nonimmigrant students remaining in the United States for lengthy
periods of time under the D/S framework, which pose serious threats to
the interests of the United States.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, DHS pointed out that
admission for D/S does not afford immigration officers enough
predetermined opportunities to directly verify that aliens granted such
nonimmigrant statuses are engaging only in those activities their
respective classifications authorize while they are in the United
States. This has undermined DHS's ability to effectively enforce
compliance with statutory inadmissibility grounds related to unlawful
presence and has created national security vulnerabilities and
incentives for fraud and abuse.
DHS believes that this rule will provide the mechanisms to address
some of the concerns surrounding the integrity of F, J, and I programs.
The rule is necessary to enhance oversight and accountability in the
administration of F, J, and I nonimmigrant statuses. While cases of
extended F-1 duration may seemingly appear to be insignificant or for
legitimate purposes, the potential for misuse or fraud in such cases
underscores the importance of implementing measures to ensure
compliance with immigration laws. DHS recognizes that extended F-1
durations may occur for valid academic or professional reasons and does
not intend to penalize students for lawful activities that comply with
the terms of their status. The rule is designed to address
vulnerabilities in the current system and ultimately to strengthen the
integrity of the F, J, and I nonimmigrant programs while recognizing
that students may be engaged in legitimate academic and professional
pursuits. DHS has carefully considered the potential impacts of the
rule and believes that its benefits, including improved oversight and
the ability to detect and prevent fraud, justify its implementation.
See secs. VI.A, B, and C for a full discussion of the rule's overall
economic impact analysis.
With respect to inaccurate or incomplete data, DHS notes that while
there may be human error involved in data entry into SEVIS and
elsewhere by immigration officers, DHS does not believe that isolated
instances greatly impact the reliability of DHS records nor the purpose
of this rule.
Likewise, DHS disagrees that the overstay rate is not significant
for J-1 nonimmigrants. According to SEVP's 2024 SEVIS by the Numbers
Report, approximately 301,000 J-1 nonimmigrants entered the United
States in 2024.\130\ Therefore, the estimated overstay number from the
2024 J-1 nonimmigrant cohort would be approximately 10,000.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ ICE, 2024 SEVIS By the Numbers Report, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/btn/25_0605_2024-sevis-btn.pdfr.
\131\ The commenters referenced an overstay rate of 2.45
percent, which is the suspected in-country overstay rate. See Entry/
Exit Overstay Report: Fiscal Year 2024, supra note 123. The total
overstay rate for students and exchange visitors (including F, M,
and J visas) in 2024 was 3.23 percent. Id. Assuming J visa holders
overstay at rates comparable to other Student and Exchange Visitors,
then the total number of overstays from the 2024 J-1 nonimmigrant
cohort would be 301,000 * 0.0323 = 9,722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as DHS overstay data using a flawed methodology, DHS has
released overstay reports each fiscal year since 2015. For the purpose
of the report, DHS counts a nonimmigrant as an overstay if, as of the
data pull date, (1) a record exists of a departure that occurred after
the end of the authorized period of
[[Page 44999]]
admission (i.e., an ``out of country overstay''), or (2) no record of a
departure, extension, change of status, or adjustment of status before
the end of the authorized period of admission (i.e., a ``suspected in-
country overstay''). The overstay rate is the share of admissions
covered by the report that meet these criteria.
DHS produces these figures using CBP's Arrival and Departure
Information System (ADIS), which consolidates carrier arrival and
departure manifests, certain partner country land exit data, and
immigration benefit and status information from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), including extensions, changes of status,
and adjustments. DHS narrows the list of suspected overstays by cross-
checking against these data sources.
The decline over time in counts of suspected in-country overstays,
as noted by NFAP, reflects the expected and documented process of
updating records as DHS receives additional departure and benefit
information. This decline is an intended result of the system design,
not a flaw in the methodology. The existence of these later adjustments
is a known and transparent feature of the methodology and does not mean
the initial statistics are unreliable or ``inflated.''
Like all administrative datasets, the ADIS system is subject to a
small number of data errors, incomplete reporting, imperfect record
matching, and related data quality problems, but the Department has
worked steadily to identify and eliminate these errors over more than a
decade. While any given individual ADIS record may be subject to
remaining data quality problems, reported aggregate overstay rates are
generally reliable and suitable for making comparisons across countries
and classes of admission and over time.
DHS also notes tracking overstay data under the D/S framework is
difficult and prone to undercounting. Tracking overstay data will be
easier to track and assess with admission for a fixed period.
Furthermore, overstays coupled with the vulnerabilities of the D/S
framework, including heightened risks to national security, pose
serious concerns. As explained in the preamble, this rule provides a
mechanism for DHS to periodically and directly assess whether these
nonimmigrants are complying with the conditions of their
classifications and U.S. immigration laws. Admission for a fixed period
of time will reduce overstays, as violators will begin to accrue
unlawful presence following the expiration of their authorized period
of admission and may become inadmissible based on that accrual of
unlawful presence under INA section 212(a)(9)(B) and (C), 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(B) and (C), upon departing the United States.
4. Negative Impacts to the U.S. Government
a. Sufficiency of Current System and Administrative Burdens
Comments: Commenters stated the SEVIS reporting and tracking
system, site visits, and current adjudications are sufficient and that
the proposed rule would not provide any greater oversight.
Specifically, commenters pointed out that the current SEVIS system
already provides DHS with significant oversight and that imposing rigid
federal restrictions on academic choices is an overreach that will
cause more harm than good. Some commenters stated that the rule creates
legal confusion and enforcement problems and that eliminating the D/S
notation and introducing fixed end dates conflict with how SEVIS and
university compliance offices currently function. Another commenter
pointed out that the D/S policy has supported generations of foreign
students and scholars while preserving program integrity, facilitating
educational mobility, and maintaining national security through SEVIS
oversight, and asserted that the proposed change would harm students,
strain university resources, and weaken the global standing of U.S.
higher education--with little evidence of the need for such reform.
Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would
only duplicate efforts currently undertaken by SEVIS and the State
Department, and USCIS would be overwhelmed due to the substantial
administrative burden from these new changes. Another commented that
the current SEVIS process is timelier and more accurate as the current
processing time for USCIS is around 3.5 months, but SEVIS requires
reporting within 21 calendar days for a DSO or an ARO and 10 calendar
days for a student or scholar. One commenter stated that it would be
hard for USCIS adjudicators to replicate the understanding of
individual systems at colleges and campuses that has already formed
between DSOs, AROs, and SEVP field representatives under the current
process. Some commenters wrote that the authority to determine a
student's academic path should remain with the academic institutions
and that DSOs are trained professionals who are best positioned to
verify a student's academic standing and intentions.
Additionally, commenters stated that the proposed rule's blanket
approach wastes enforcement resources on low-risk populations rather
than actual threats. Due to this population already being vetted under
SEVIS, one commenter wrote that the changes under the proposed rule
would divert DHS resources away from investigating high-priority
threats, such as state-sponsored espionage, cyber warfare, and
terrorism.
Response: DHS acknowledges that existing mechanisms, such as SEVIS,
provide oversight of foreign students, foreign exchange visitors, and
educational institutions in general. However, DHS believes that the
existing monitoring and vetting efforts are not exclusive mechanisms
nor the only approach for strengthening the F, J, and I nonimmigrant
classifications. Moreover, DHS disagrees that leveraging data in SEVIS
alone to identify possible student or exchange visitor status
violations is sufficient to address the vulnerabilities of the D/S
framework.
In part, SEVIS relies on information that is inputted by
educational institutions and program sponsors. While DHS appreciates
that DSOs and ROs generally interact frequently with nonimmigrant
students and exchange visitors, DHS believes it is appropriate for DSOs
to comply with SEVIS reporting requirements for their school or program
sponsors and F and J nonimmigrant population, but for DHS to make
immigration status determinations, such as extending an immigration
status and assessing whether an alien remains eligible for the
nonimmigrant classification. DSOs and ROs cannot perform the duties of
immigration officers. For example, DSOs may be unaware of a student's
failure to maintain status, including by engaging in criminal activity.
They may recommend program extensions, but only immigration officers
can adjudicate EOS applications and make legal determinations about
status and admissibility. DSOs and ROs should no longer serve as direct
proxies for immigration officers, though they will continue to perform
important duties to assist DHS and nonimmigrant students and exchange
visitors.
Under the D/S framework, there are no background checks required
while the alien is in the United States unless the F, J, or I
nonimmigrant applies for a change of status to a different nonimmigrant
status, or another benefit with USCIS. This has created situations
where F, J, and I nonimmigrants can be present for long periods in the
United States without undergoing U.S. government review in the form of
an
[[Page 45000]]
EOS application, including accompanying background checks, or
subsequent visa application or inspection at a POE. Admission for a
fixed period of time will reduce overstays, as violators will begin to
accrue unlawful presence following the expiration of their authorized
period of admission and may become inadmissible based on that accrual
of unlawful presence under INA section 212(a)(9)(B) and (C), 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(B) and (C), upon departing the United States. While some
commenters call for a more targeted approach to vetting, DHS asserts
that the fixed admission period and the EOS application requirements
are not punitive or specific to the F, J, and I nonimmigrants. Notably,
the new rule closely aligns the regulations and procedures for other
nonimmigrant classifications.
b. National Security Programs and Self-Reporting
Comments: Commenters provided specific instances where already
established programs could be used to achieve the goals set forth under
the proposed rule. Commenters also noted that there are programs
already in place to deal with national security threats. One commenter
noted that the DoS already investigates funding sources, extended
family, travel plans, previous travel to the United States, social
media activity, employment and education, and planned work or education
in the United States. The commenter stated that relying on individuals
to self-report violations of status or crimes would not strengthen
national security, and the questions posted in Part 4 of the I-539
extension of status application are similar to the abbreviation version
found in the DS-160. A commenter noted that Project Campus Sentinel,
led by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), currently remains active
under the Counter Threat Lead Development Unit (CTLD) and already
monitors students and campus compliance. Another commenter noted that
there is already oversight by the DoS and DHS for I visa applicants as
they must undergo vetting by U.S. consular officers before admission.
Another commenter recommended DHS divert FBI agents and DEA agents who
are currently being used for immigration enforcement back to national
security threats.
Response: DHS acknowledges that there are other existing mechanisms
that enhance oversight of students, educational institutions, and
foreign nationals in general. However, DHS disagrees with commenters
that the existing mechanisms are sufficient. DHS believes that the
existing monitoring and vetting efforts are not exclusive mechanisms
nor the only approach for strengthening the F, J, and I nonimmigrant
classifications. In fact, the screening, vetting, and investigating
efforts undertaken by other agencies and departments, as well as
agencies within DHS, should be a collaborative effort that further
strengthens national security and the integrity of the U.S. immigration
system.
Furthermore, DHS asserts that the comment on self-reporting is
misguided. The rule does not largely rely on self-reporting by foreign
nationals. The rule provides that as part of the EOS application
process for F, J, and I nonimmigrants, USCIS may require the collection
of biometrics (such as fingerprints, photographs, and signatures) as
may be required by 8 CFR 103.16, and applicants may be required to
appear for an interview. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). The purpose of
collecting biometrics is to confirm the individual's identity, conduct
background and security checks, and screen for any national security or
fraud concerns. The EOS application requirement is a way to enhance
government oversight and monitoring, and to ensure that individuals do
not pose a threat to national security, as biometrics and background
checks will be conducted more frequently.
5. Impacts to Higher Education
a. Enrollment
Comments: Commenters expressed concern, without providing data,
about the proposed rule's potential to decrease foreign student
enrollment in U.S. institutions, with some estimating a decrease of 10-
15 percent and 20-30 percent. Commenters stated that this could
exacerbate already declining enrollment levels. Others remarked that
the rule's unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful process would impact
numbers of students willing to study at U.S. universities, which would
directly harm the operations of foreign student and scholar services
since 70 percent of salaries, systems and programming costs are student
fee based. A commenter stated, without support, that U.S. institutions
have lost nearly one-third of their foreign students in Fall 2025.
Commenters stated this decrease is attributed to political instability,
perceived hostility from administration policies, increased visa
vetting, and limited visa appointment availability. One commenter
included an analysis of preliminary data from Inside Higher Ed,\132\
which showed a decline in foreign student enrollment in Fall 2025 for
both public and small private colleges in the United States. One
commenter described an approaching ``demographic cliff'' starting in
2025 due to declining U.S. birth rates after 2007, suggesting that
foreign students serve as a critical buffer against enrollment
instability at many institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ The commenter referenced Mowreader, A., Inside Higher Ed,
International Enrollment Down at Regional Publics, Small Private
Colleges (Sept. 23, 2025), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/international-studentsus/2025/09/23/international-enrollment-down-small-regional#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters point out how this rule could deter prospective
students by making the United States educational institutions less
attractive compared to countries like Germany, China, Singapore, Canada
or Australia, which offer more flexible visa systems. Along the same
lines, a commenter compared the cost of studying in the U.S. to other
countries and discussed the following, without providing any citation
for this data: Canada--Master's tuition is CAD 15,000-30,000 per year
(~$11,000-$22,000 USD) and graduates can apply for permanent residence
within 1-2 years, with straightforward work permits; Germany--Public
universities charge [euro]0-[euro]3,000 per year (~$0-$3,300 USD) and
graduates can obtain permanent residency in 2-3 years, with immediate
full-time work authorization; Australia--Master's tuition ranges from
AUD 30,000-45,000 per year (~$18,000-$27,000 USD) and graduates can
work on a Temporary Graduate visa (subclass 485), and after 2-4 years
of skilled employment, may become eligible for permanent residency. The
commenter noted that in contrast, in the U.S. even after 2-3 years of
study and work on OPT and STEM OPT, international graduates only had
the option of H-1B visas, which are subject to the lottery system, with
no guarantee to permanent residency. The commenter added that the
additional burdens and uncertainty due to the rule would reduce the
attractiveness of the U.S. education.
Relatedly, a commenter noted that this trend will have a multiplier
effect as each negatively affected student influences dozens of
prospective applicants. A commenter wrote that data from the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Migration
outlook (commenter did not provide a source) shows that countries
offering pathway predictability capture 73 percent more STEM doctoral
graduates than those with rigid renewal requirements, while another
commenter stated that the UK's restoration of two-year post-study work
[[Page 45001]]
visas in 2021 resulted in a 24 percent increase in foreign student
application within one year.
Several commenters noted that community colleges will also be
impacted as they can be pipelines to universities, and the proposed
rule may hinder the transfer process and thereby discourage applicants
from enrolling in community colleges. Several commenters said the
proposed rule would make it more difficult for community colleges to
enroll students and would increase their workload. Commenters stated
that foreign students do not displace domestic students, with some
citing research from the NFAP which found that for every additional
international undergraduate student enrolled, on average two more in-
state first-year students enrolled at public universities.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ The commenters referenced Zavodny, M., Nat'l Found for Am.
Pol'y, The Importance of Immigrants and International Students to
Higher Education in America, (May 2025), https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Importance-of-Immigrants-and-International-Students-to-Higher-Education.NFAP-Policy-Brief.2025.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS acknowledges that enrollment of foreign students in
U.S. educational institutions may decline because of this rule but is
unable to quantify the extent of this decline because there is no
precedent from which accurate conclusions can be drawn as to the rule's
impact. However, DHS does not intend for the rule to result in a
significant decline in foreign student enrollment. As noted, the level
of foreign student enrollment does fluctuate, and it is speculative to
assess any declination is a direct and sole result of the rule.\134\
Any decline would likely include some prospective or current foreign
students who do not intend to comply or have not been complying with
the conditions of their nonimmigrant classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ See FY 2024, Quarter 4, tbl.4B, supra note 11, sum of F-1
1,816,480 and F-2 63,510. See also DHS FY 2023, Quarter 4, tbl.4B,
supra note 11, sum of F-1 1,625,740 and F-2 61,910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS recognizes foreign students play a role in stabilizing
enrollment and supporting the financial health of many institutions,
including community colleges that serve as pipelines to universities.
DHS has considered commenters' citations regarding economic impacts
regionally and at the state level and all the potential impacts when
drafting this rule. DHS has ultimately concluded the benefits to the
rule outweigh any potential decreases to enrollment and subsequent
economic impacts.
b. Impact on Academic Programs and Research and STEM
Comments: Many commenters raised concerns regarding the impact on
educational and research programs due to the rule's provisions on fixed
admission period and EOS requirements. Specifically, multiple
commenters raised concerns that programs lasting longer than the four
years, including many doctorate degrees, are in jeopardy due to the 4-
year fixed admission period provided in the rule. Commenters stated
this rule is fundamentally misaligned with the actual academic
landscape of U.S. higher education. A commenter noted the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System measures successful completion of a
bachelor's degree within 6 years, while Federal Financial Aid
eligibility identifies satisfactory academic progress standards at 150
percent of the published program length. According to commenters, for
undergraduate students, data shows that 56 percent take more than 4
years to complete the degree program, and double majors require 5 to 6
years due to overlapping and intensive core curricula. Commenters
particularly stated that many STEM doctoral programs require more than
five years of training to ensure mastery within the field and that four
years is not sufficient. One commenter noted that based on NSF data,
engineering Ph.D. completion is on average 6.7 years and science Ph.D.s
average 6.1 years, and with the proposed limit at 4 years, researchers
who are behind breakthrough technologies, such as quantum computing,
AI, biotechnology, and advanced materials, will go elsewhere. Another
commenter noted that according to the American Institute of Physics,
the average time to complete a Ph.D. in physics is six years and that
approximately 16 percent of students take eight years or more to
complete their degrees.
Commenters pointed out that the rule would have a negative impact
on U.S. universities, research, economy, and global competitiveness, as
foreign students contribute billions to the U.S. economy through
tuition, housing, and innovation (e.g., in STEM fields). Another
commenter stated the rule would impose hundreds of millions of dollars
in annual compliance costs, much of which would fall on U.S.
universities and research institutions, which could otherwise fund
classrooms, laboratories, or enforcement priorities. Given the
timelines for requesting EOS and the potential for projects to be
interrupted, commenters noted that the proposed rule could slow down or
disrupt research outcomes at U.S. universities and weaken U.S.
leadership in the field of science. Some commenters noted that the
introduction of uncertainty in the system for foreign born students
would also harm research continuity and innovation in the long run.
Lastly, a commenter noted that the United States hosts many of the
world's international doctoral students across Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, and making
studying in the United States less predictable would undermine the
United States national security and economic competitiveness.
Response: DHS recognizes that the rule will require implementing
changes by the stakeholders, especially students, researchers, and
educational institutions. However, DHS believes that such burdens are
outweighed by the benefits of this rule, which creates a mechanism for
DHS to increase vetting, reduce overstays, and determine whether
nonimmigrants are complying with the conditions of their nonimmigrant
classification. The requirements imposed by this final rule provides
the U.S. government more opportunities to review a nonimmigrant's
records, admissibility, and any possible indicators of fraud, abuse, or
national security concerns. This rule seeks to address vulnerabilities
posed by the D/S framework by providing DHS predetermined points in
time for immigration officers to directly evaluate whether F, J, and I
nonimmigrants are maintaining their status, as DHS does for other
nonimmigrant classifications.
DHS recognizes students may take longer than four years to complete
their undergraduate and graduate programs of study. DHS also recognizes
commenters' statements about other federal standards related to
postsecondary education completion which are greater than four years,
such as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and the
Federal Financial Aid eligibility. However, this rulemaking does not
require completion of a program within four years. Rather, the four-
year period is intended as a law enforcement and screening tool to
assess whether a student is maintaining normal academic progress and
eligibility for F-1 status. Students who demonstrate continued academic
progress and meet F-1 eligibility criteria may apply for an EOS to
complete their programs, consistent with the realities of U.S. higher
education. The student may also travel and reenter with a period of
admission to complete the
[[Page 45002]]
remaining program of study. This approach is designed to enhance
screening and vetting, not to impose a rigid completion deadline.
DHS acknowledges the concern about potential negative impacts of
the rule on academic research. However, DHS believes that legitimate
foreign national researchers will continue to seek educational and
research opportunities in the United States based on the excellence of
United States institutions and programs. Nothing in this rule would
prevent students from continuing their studies and research as long as
individual students are complying with the terms of their nonimmigrant
classification. Long-standing policy, which is not changing, allows F-1
and J-1 students to continue their studies for as long as their EOS
application is pending. This rule does add a provision for on-campus
employment, CPT, and off-campus work due to severe economic hardship
which allows those who are employed to continue to work for the same
employer up to 240 days after the expiration of their stay if they
timely filed an EOS and it is still pending with USCIS. This final rule
does not change the current regulations at 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(6)(iv) for
nonimmigrant students transitioning from OPT to STEM OPT who have
timely filed for an extension of their EAD, and it is pending with
USCIS. They may continue to work for the same employer for up to 180
days after the expiration of their OPT EAD. This extension of the EAD
may or may not coincide with a need to file for an EOS. If it does,
they will be considered to be maintaining their status as long as they
timely filed for the EOS and the 180 days will begin to toll only upon
the expiration of their EAD.
DHS is not changing the fundamental requirements to qualify for
these nonimmigrant statuses; it is only changing the length of time
that an individual may lawfully remain in the United States in F or J
status without filing an EOS. Further, as is the case for the fixed
period of admission policy more generally, a fixed date of admission
simply places these nonimmigrants in the same position as most other
nonimmigrants who are temporarily in the United States. They will still
be able to continue to pursue their full course of study or exchange
program. However, if they need additional time in F or J status, the
burden will now be on them to request authorization directly from DHS
and establish eligibility to extend their period of stay in such
status, whereas previously they obtained an extension of lawful status
in conjunction with a program extension through a DSO or RO. As such,
DHS believes this rule will not cause undue burden to students or
schools.
Comments: Many commenters discussed the rule's financial impact on
various industries across the board. In the field of education,
commenters remarked on the significant contributions of foreign
students to the United States, particularly in addressing critical
workforce shortages and as student leaders, teaching and research
assistants, mentors, and tutors. Relatedly, a commenter, citing
specific examples of international educational exchange, stated that
this academic exchange contributes hundreds of millions of dollars
annually to educational institutions and broader economies in both
countries.
In the STEM fields, commenters remarked on the critical role of
foreign students in STEM fields, stating that they comprise a
significant percentage of graduate students in disciplines such as
electrical engineering, computer science, and mathematics. Commenters
indicated that the data from the Association of American Universities
showed that 73 percent of international STEM graduates continue to live
and work in the United States years after graduation, providing
scientific, technological, and economic benefits. Relatedly, commenters
added that foreign-born individuals comprise 43 percent of doctorate-
level scientists and engineers in the United States, and one in three
members of the nation's leading science, engineering, and medical
academies are naturalized U.S. citizens. A commenter stated that
foreign students account for 38 percent of graduate enrollments in
statistics, computer science and health informatics programs.
Commenters suggested that recruiting foreign students majoring in STEM
should serve as the primary channel for talent acquisition, as the
United States faces a significant shortage of tech professionals
unlikely to be filled by American students in the near term.
Commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would
negatively impact the U.S. STEM workforce and leadership at a time when
STEM jobs are projected to grow approximately 10 percent between 2023
and 2033--nearly three times faster than non-STEM jobs--creating a need
for 870,000 STEM positions over the next decade. Relatedly, commenters
pointed to existing labor shortages, including an annual deficit of
2,500 workers with advanced engineering degrees in the semiconductor
industry, and a projected 14 percent increase in the need for
manufacturing engineers, a 31 percent growth in the need for healthcare
data analyst roles, and a 50 percent growth in renewable energy roles
over the next decade. Commenters warned that the proposed rule could
undermine U.S. leadership in research, healthcare, including elder
care, artificial intelligence (AI), and energy by driving top students
and scholars to competitor nations. Additionally, commentors stated
that the policy may weaken the cybersecurity industry which would also
leave the United States vulnerable.
Commenters stated that the proposed rule would threaten other
critical industries such as financial services, engineering, cloud
computing, biotechnology, healthcare analytics, autonomous vehicles,
accounting, and quantum computing. Many commentors stated similar
concerns with the role of foreign students, worker deficit, and need
for multidisciplinary education facing the industries for
telecommunications; biotechnology and healthcare informatics;
pharmaceutical development; fintech including blockchain, AI and
digital payments; medical technology; insurance and risk management;
legal services and professional consulting; aerospace and defense
systems; industrial engineering; automotive technology; computer
science; environmental remediation and sustainable development;
semiconductors; talent acquisition; and marketing and supply chain
management. A commenter suggested the implementation of strategic
industries exemption for supply chain critical sectors identified by
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States or
alternatively create a ``National Economic Security'' designation
allowing for extended D/S for individuals working in sectors deemed
essential for domestic manufacturing. A commenter also addressed the
role of foreign students in behavioral health and social work fields,
stating that international doctoral psychology trainees provide
supervised care to underserved communities, and international
perspectives broaden expertise in social work research. Another
commenter added that social work graduates often remain to serve high-
need communities through OPT or advanced research positions, helping to
meet the projected 6 percent growth in social work jobs from 2024-34,
which is expected to create over 74,000 new positions.
Separately, a commenter specifically expressed concern that foreign
students represent a significant portion of clients for New York
immigration law firms, sponsorship and intermediary agencies,
[[Page 45003]]
and housing rental platforms. Similarly, another commenter expressed
concern on the impact of the rule in Western New York, including
Buffalo, and stated that F-1 students contribute $249.1 million and
support 2,114 jobs.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ The commenter referenced NAFSA: National Association of
International Educators, NAFSA International Student Economic Value
Tool, https://www.nafsa.org/policy-and-advocacy/policy-resources/nafsa-international-student-economic-value-tool-v2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS acknowledges commenters' assertions that foreign
students and professionals can provide benefits to research, technology
developments, and the economy. DHS also acknowledges that foreign
students make up a high percentage of students in STEM and technology
programs. However, DHS believes some commenters are conflating the
admission period with the total amount of time a foreign student may be
permitted to remain in the United States to complete a program.
Students who require additional time beyond their initial period of
admission to complete their program may be eligible to extend their
status by filing an EOS application with USCIS or, if they choose to
travel, they can (with an unexpired visa) apply for admission at a POE
through CBP and receive a new I-94 with a new AUD. Given the options
for extending status, DHS does not believe it is necessary to create
exemptions based on certain industries. DHS expects that foreign
students will continue to pursue educational opportunities in the STEM
fields.
c. Financial Impact and Administrative Burden
Comments: Commenters expressed concern regarding the rule's
financial impact and administrative burden on higher education
institutions, university operations, diminished collaborative academic
environments, and the potential to force schools to break promises made
during student recruitment. Multiple commenters pointed out that
universities rely on predictable visa policies for financial, staffing,
and resource planning and that sudden, rigid changes in the proposed
rule requiring fixed admission periods create unsustainable
administrative burdens, legal risks, and complicate compliance
reporting under SEVIS that could threaten the stability of the entire
sector.
With respect to costs, commenters stated that the 67-hour estimate
by DHS analysis underestimated the true impact, as the proposed rule
would fundamentally alter the scope of DSO and RO work, requiring them
to overhaul routine processes, educate students on new requirements,
and coordinate with campus stakeholders. A few commenters pointed out
that DSOs would have to undergo additional training and adaptation to
familiarize themselves with the new regulations, and that this
compliance cost is estimated to reach $93.3 million across the sector
in year one.\136\ Relatedly, a commenter who identified as an education
administrator at a public university estimated needing over 1,000 hours
and $250,000 for training, software updates, and new staffing. Another
commenter remarked that institutions would need to prepare for a
``massive scaling of resources,'' including enhanced legal and mental
health support for students navigating the new system, because of the
proposed rule. A commenter specifically remarked that the rule would
require Oklahoma State University to hire four additional full-time
immigration compliance staff and implement new tracking systems costing
approximately $500,000 initially, based on their preliminary analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Some commenters referenced DHS or NAFSA. See NAFSA,
Duration of Status Explainer, https://www.nafsa.org/Duration-status-explainer (last visited Feb. 6, 2026). See also 85 FR at 60569,
60575, and 60577.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple commenters stated that the proposed rule will overload
DSOs, delay processing, and increase accidental out-of-status
violations, and noted that the American Council on Education has warned
against the proposed rule (no source provided). Several commenters
noted that the increased workload on the educational institutions would
lead to staff burnout and higher turnover rates with DSO staff,
increasing the risk of institutional non-compliance due to less
experienced staff. Another commenter noted that the rule's
administrative burden would be exacerbated by students filing at
similar times based on academic calendars and I-20 end dates.
Relatedly, a commenter stated that the proposed rule assumes that DSOs
and AROs will provide students and exchange visitors with Form I-539
application support, but that many schools do not allow their officials
to undertake this work, as it could constitute unauthorized practice of
law. The commenter voiced concern about the uncertainty on whether the
school should be hiring legal assistants to file EOS forms on behalf of
students or if the students and exchange visitors would need to assume
such costs.
A commenter noted that DHS estimates 67 hours of training per DSO,
which costs $3,342 per DSO, plus $233 per EOS request. The same
commenter stated that even modest enrollment declines could cause major
losses because foreign students contributed $40.1 billion to the U.S.
economy in 2022-23, supporting 368,333 U.S. jobs, according to the
Institute of International Education (IIE) (no source provided).
Response: DHS acknowledges that there will be learning curve for
both administrators and participants to get accustomed to the new rule.
That is why there is a 60-day implementation period and a 4-year
transition period. Those in D/S status when the rule takes effect will
have up to 4 years to finish their programs without changing to a date
certain while living in the United States. Only participants arriving
after the effective date of the rule will be subject to all the
provisions of the rule. Administrators will receive plenty of training
during the 60-day implementation period to understand how to deal with
and help incoming participants subject to the new rule. SEVIS will be
updated to make the implementation of the rule easier. Therefore, DHS
does not believe that the commenters fears will come to fruition.
In response to comments providing alternative estimates for the
DSO/RO labor burden, DHS has revised the rule familiarization and
adaptation burden estimate from 67 hours to the median value the public
comments provided of 135 hours. This increase is reflected in the
updated cost numbers, and includes any additional training or materials
created due to this rule. DHS anticipates that most schools authorized
to sponsor F students and J exchange visitors will be able to
accommodate the additional DSO/RO labor burden with existing staff, as
much of the burden for filing EOS requests will fall to the
nonimmigrants subject to this rule. The burden to the school has still
been accounted for in the regulatory impact analysis as a quantified
cost. DHS, however, recognizes that some schools may elect to hire more
DSOs and ROs to meet the requirements of this rulemaking. DHS expects
hiring costs to vary depending on the number of F students and J
exchange visitors at each institution, the size of the institution, and
the number of existing staff. That said, DHS anticipates that costs of
hiring and paying additional staff will represent a small portion of
annual revenue for the great majority of institutional sponsors. See
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Additionally, other costs associated with this rule, such as system
upgrades for batch processing, are acknowledged but remain unquantified
in the
[[Page 45004]]
Regulatory Impact Analysis. These costs will be variable to each entity
responsible for F and J visas, as it is unclear how many groups use
proprietary software that would incur larger expenses versus off-the-
shelf software that may come with a low-cost upgrade to continue
functionality. Therefore, due to the high variance and lack of specific
data to provide a meaningful estimate, DHS has chosen to not quantify
these software costs. These costs are still discussed in a qualitative
fashion.
In response to comments expressing concern about the need for
institutions to prepare for a ``massive scaling of resources,''
including enhanced legal and mental health support for students
navigating the new system, DHS does not believe such massive scaling
will be necessary. DHS recognizes some institutions may choose to
provide additional services, such as legal and mental health support,
but these additional services are not a requirement of this rule. DHS
will provide resources and training to assist relevant stakeholders in
complying with the rule. Because support and resources for students and
exchange visitors vary widely by school and program sponsor, DHS cannot
qualitatively estimate the impact.
DHS disagrees with the assertion that the rule will lead to
accidental out-of-status violations. Resources and guidance will be
available to assist DSOs, ROs, students, and exchange visitors in
familiarizing themselves and complying with the rule's requirements.
Students or exchange visitors who accidentally violate their status
after the rule takes effect will still have the ability to apply for
reinstatement of their nonimmigrant status. Whether or not
nonimmigrants feel they will need the help of a legal professional to
fill out the forms will be a personal decision. The forms are written
in clear language adhering to the guidelines of the Plain Language Act
with instructions designed to be easy to understand.
Comments: Commenters voiced concerns regarding the financial impact
on institutions resulting from the drop in nonimmigrant student and
scholar enrollment. Many commenters wrote that foreign students' full-
price tuition helps maintain affordable college access for domestic
students by subsidizing them.
Specifically, a lawyers association noted that private universities
received $4.3 billion in revenue from international master's students
in 2015, and public universities received $3 billion, much of which can
be attributed to the fact that foreign students pay full or out-of-
state tuition, which is usually two to three times more than in-state
tuition.\137\ A commenter stated that large public universities depend
on the higher tuition paid by foreign students to offset declining
state funding. Similarly, other commenters expressed concern that the
financial risk of foreign student losses would disproportionately
affect private, smaller, faith-based, or regional colleges that rely on
a high proportion of foreign students and their tuition revenue. A
commenter from a faith-based institution elaborated that foreign
students are vital to their ``Christ based'' mission and that often,
foreign students come from religiously restricted regions. Another
commenter stated that non-elite universities do not have waiting lists
of domestic students to make up for this lost tuition revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ The commenter referenced The Importance of Immigrants and
International Students to Higher Education in America, supra note
133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter cited an estimate from Moody's \138\ which found that
a 20 percent drop in international enrollment would negatively affect
operating margins at 130 institutions by half a percentage point, with
18 institutions losing between 2 to 8 percent. This commenter explained
that such loss could trigger significant financial stress for colleges
with already thin margins. Additionally, several commenters added that
lost tuition income would result in cuts to institutional offerings and
services for all students, passing costs on to domestic students by
raising tuition rates or reducing financial aid offers, or impacting
other aspects of a school's operations, potentially compromising its
continuity. Some commenters also expressed concern about the loss of
tuition revenue for funding cutting-edge research initiatives and
faculty or staff positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ The commenter referenced Uglesbee, B., Higher Ed Dive,
Moody's: Trump's tough international student policies could hit some
colleges hard (July 11, 2025), https://www.highereddive.com/news/trump-international-student-policiescolleges-finance-moodys/7527.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In explaining the financial loss, one commenter pointed to an
analysis \139\ that explained that the national negative economic
impact would be on average $130 per resident, but Washington, DC and
states such as Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut
would be even higher, with Washington, DC estimated at $855 per
resident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ The commenter referenced Sharma, S., The Times of India,
Which US states face the biggest losses from fewer international
students, according to Brookings (Sept. 20, 2025), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/which-us-states-face-thebiggest-losses-from-fewer-international-students-according-tobrookings/articleshow/124018687.cm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS acknowledges commenters' assertions that foreign
students and professionals can provide economic benefits. DHS asserts
that such economic contributions will continue to accrue after the
final rule becomes effective because foreign students will continue to
choose to study in the United States. While DHS acknowledges that the
rule may decrease nonimmigrant student enrollments, particularly among
foreign nationals seeking to violate statutory and regulatory intent,
DHS believes that, nonimmigrant students will still come to the United
States because the United States remains the world leader in scientific
research, innovation, and technology, providing students with access to
cutting-edge facilities and projects. DHS does not believe that this
final rule will have an impact on faith-based institutions nor students
coming from religiously restricted regions. While the rule creates some
restrictions on transfers and program changes, the rule creates
exceptions for extenuating circumstances based on SEVP authorization.
See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A).
It is speculative and difficult to predict the extent to which
nonimmigrant students may be deterred from coming to the United States
based on this rule when a variety of factors play a role in a student
determining when and where to enroll.\140\ See a detailed discussion on
uncertainty related to enrollment impacts in Appendix A of the RIA. The
United States invests heavily in research and development, has world-
renowned universities and research institutions, and is home to many
leading technology companies. The United States consistently produces
significant advancements in fields such as medicine, engineering, space
exploration, information technology, and artificial intelligence that
are attractive for all students.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ See Final Regulatory Impact and Flexibility Act Analysis,
Appendix A.
\141\ See The National Science Board, Biennial Science and
Engineering Indicators (Indicators) (March 2024), https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20243/preface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in response to commenters who said that declining
international enrollment in U.S. institutions will increase tuition
costs for domestic students, for the reasons stated above, DHS
maintains that it is speculative and difficult to predict how this
final rule will affect enrollment numbers for nonimmigrant students and
the financial operations of U.S.
[[Page 45005]]
institutions.\142\ How a U.S. institution assesses tuition and obtains
income from students both domestic and foreign, along with other
sources of income such as endowments or donations, is a business
decision that each institution has the autonomy to make.\143\
Endowments can be substantial and may amount to millions, billions, or
even tens of billions of dollars per year.\144\ These funding sources
are independent of the revenue derived from nonimmigrant students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ See Final Regulatory Impact and Flexibility Act Analysis,
Appendix A.
\143\ Bound, J. et al., The Globalization of Postsecondary
Education: The Role of International Students in the US Higher
Education System, 35 J. Econ. Perspectives 163, 178 (2021), https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.35.1.163.
\144\ See U.S. News & World Report, 20 Colleges with the Biggest
Endowments (Mar. 12, 2025), https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/universities-with-the-biggest-endowments. See also American Council on Education,
Understanding College and University Endowments (2024), https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Understanding-College-and-University-Endowments.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS is unable to accurately forecast which actions institutions may
take to address the possibility that nonimmigrant enrollment may
decline and impact their financial health. U.S. institutions
autonomously make business decisions every year about enrollment such
as the class size and composition.\145\ These business decisions can
impact the number of foreign students enrolled at a particular U.S.
institution and those business decisions may be made in response to
decreasing or increasing enrollment of both foreign and U.S. students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ See Bellows, K.H., The Chronicle of Higher Education, The
University that Chose to Shrink (May 18, 2026), https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-university-that-chose-to-shrink.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Quality of Education and Cross-Cultural Benefits
Comments: Commenters stated that the proposed rule would make it
harder for companies to recruit talent who are especially familiar with
growth markets in places such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe. One
commenter noted a Duke University study \146\ which found that U.S.
students ``reported greater self-confidence, leadership skills,
quantitative abilities, and cross-cultural understanding'' when they
interacted with foreign students on a regular basis. Many commenters
stated that foreign student presence fosters mutual respect,
collaboration, cultural goodwill, and soft diplomacy. Another commenter
stated that dual language exchange programs benefit the economy by
preparing students for multilingual environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ The commenter referenced Boundless, International Students
Studying in the United States: Trends and Impacts 2025, https://www.boundless.com/research-reports/international-students-studying-in-the-united-states-trends-and-impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters emphasized that foreign students support and increase
class options for domestic students, sustaining enrollments in
disciplines with insufficient domestic interest, particularly STEM
fields, and thereby creating and maintaining academic opportunities for
all students, including opportunities in critical disciplines.
Many commenters stated that foreign students serve as unofficial
ambassadors, creating an organic cultural exchange that benefits both
American and foreign students and strengthening international
relationships. Multiple commenters stated that foreign students often
become political or business leaders in their home countries, with 34
percent of current foreign ministers, trade officials, or senior
diplomats in G20 countries having studied in the United States on F or
J visas. As of 2022, 41 world leaders had been educated in the United
States. A commenter explained that when foreign students become future
global leaders, the relationships they developed during their education
in the United States could contribute to their investment in and
alignment with American interests. Another commenter noted that the
presence of foreign students advances the goals envisioned by the
Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961, strengthening diplomacy by fostering mutual
understanding and building people-to-people connections around the
world. A commenter stated that the proposed rule would undermine the
mission and philosophy of the DoS's BridgeUSA Program,\147\ the purpose
of which is ``to increase mutual understanding between the people of
the United States and the people of other countries by means of
educational and cultural exchanges,'' which in turn would lead to fewer
individuals choosing to study in the United States and contribute to
the U.S. economy, therefore, it should be exempt from this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ Congress passed the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961, also known as The Fulbright-Hays Act, to
increase mutual understanding between Americans and people of other
countries. In the years since the legislation was passed the program
became known as the Exchange Visitor Program and in 2020 it was
renamed as the BridgeUSA Program. It is run by DoS in collaboration
with the private sector sponsors and features 13 distinct programs
from au pairs and camp counselors to physician and professor
exchanges. See U.S. Dep't of State, BridgeUSA, https://j1visa.state.gov/ (last visited Feb. 4, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS acknowledges the benefits of fostering relationships
with foreign students and exchange visitors. DHS does not intend for
this rulemaking to result in significant declines to international
enrollment and, thus, DHS does not expect this rule to harm U.S.
partnerships across the globe; significantly affect the ability of U.S.
companies to recruit talent familiar with global growth markets; or
change class options, particularly in STEM. DHS asserts that U.S.
educational institutions will continue to attract talented foreign
students, researchers, and scholars in STEM and other high-demand
fields because such institutions offer a high-quality education. U.S.
institutions remain reputable to foreign students who value a degree
from a U.S. institution and there are many factors that have made the
United States attractive to nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors
beyond being admitted for D/S. DHS remains committed to supporting
broader goals of educational and cultural exchange envisioned by the
Fulbright-Hays Act.
6. Negative Impacts on the U.S. Economy, Citizens, Industries,
Workforce, or Communities
a. U.S. Competitiveness and National Policy Goals
Comments: Commenters expressed concern that restrictions on foreign
students and exchange visitors would compromise the United States'
prominence and competitiveness in scientific and technical fields,
potentially shifting international research hubs and jobs abroad. A
commenter stated U.S. research leadership and clinical infrastructure
would be weakened by the erosion of talent and momentum and this could
undercut national and economic security while also causing loss of
U.S.-trained international expertise to global competitors.\148\ Other
commenters expressed that these restrictions would contradict national
policy goals set forth under the CHIPS and Science Act.\149\ A
commenter wrote that uncertainty and stringent scrutiny could
discourage foreign students from pursuing high-
[[Page 45006]]
risk, high-reward long-term basic research or sensitive yet critical
areas and instead opt for ``safer'' short-term studies. Furthermore,
another noted that foreign students in these types of fields help
support the defense industry, research labs, and the technology sector
in the United States, and if these skilled students leave, the United
States' competitive edge over technology may erode. Another commenter
wrote that they recognize broader concerns with immigration and noted
that while status through marriage or asylum may not necessarily align
with U.S. economic or technological goals, F-1 students add value to
America's future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ The commenter referenced SSTi, Global competition
intensifies for US research talent amid funding uncertainty (Mar.
27, 2025), https://ssti.org/blog/global-competition-intensifies-us-
research-talent-amid-funding-
uncertainty#:~:text=As%20U.S.%20research%20institutions%20face%20fund
ing%20uncertainty%2C%20countries,an%20immigration%20framework%20in%20
the%20next%20EU%20budget.
\149\ See CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, Public Law 117-167, 136
Stat. 1372 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters stated the strength of U.S. agriculture depends on
a steady pipeline of skilled international students and professionals,
who conduct agricultural research and develop innovative technologies
for farming. The commenters stated that farmers could face delayed
veterinary and technical support for livestock and crop health,
resulting in increased costs for farming and weaking America's food
security, especially in rural areas. Communities dependent on food
production would be exposed to greater risks from disease outbreaks,
supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages.
Response: DHS acknowledges favorable visa policies as a
contributing factor in where foreign students choose to enroll but also
understands that there are a wide range of benefits from pursuing an
academic program in the United States. DHS acknowledges that these
competitive policies may affect a potential foreign student or exchange
visitor's decision to select a U.S. institution; however, DHS does not
anticipate the rule to impact the quality of educational experience
offered in the United States and that the United States will remain a
desirable destination for many foreign students and exchange visitors.
DHS has decided to discuss this impact qualitatively due to the
speculative nature of the magnitude of the decrease in enrollment.
DHS also notes the specific concerns raised by commenters regarding
the potential for shifting international research hubs and jobs abroad,
and the possible impact on key sectors such as the defense industry,
research, clinical and research infrastructure, and the technology
sector. DHS is aware of the national policy goals set forth under the
CHIPS and Science Act and appreciates the importance of aligning
immigration policy with broader national objectives. DHS further
acknowledges concerns that increased uncertainty or scrutiny could
discourage foreign students from engaging in high-risk, long-term, or
sensitive research. However, DHS is taking this action to enhance
immigration system integrity, prevent violations to mitigate future
national security risks, and detect existing violations which also risk
national security.
Furthermore, DHS recognizes any delays or disruptions in the
arrival of foreign students may impact livestock and crop health, food
supply chains, and the well-being of agricultural communities. DHS is
committed to ensuring that immigration processes are efficient,
transparent, and responsive to the needs of key industries, including
agriculture.
b. Global Competitiveness and Innovation
Comments: Many commenters stated the importance of foreign students
and workers to the U.S. economy, research, and innovation, expressing
concern that the proposed policy would undermine global
competitiveness. Commenters noted that the strength of the United
States is rooted in openness and confidence, and excessive restrictions
could harm this value, along with harm to trade, technology, and job
creation, citing data that foreign student alumni have founded major
startups and contributed significantly to patents and Fortune 500
companies. Commenters stated that the rule could shift the United
States from being a talent destination to merely a training ground and
the proposal may force businesses into excessive compliance or even
push them out of markets. Commenters said that the D/S system has
helped integrate global talent into the U.S. innovation ecosystem.
Commenters highlighted that foreign students often fill critical
roles in major companies and startups, driving innovation, with many
international students staying 5, 10, or even 20 years after
graduation. Commenters said that the proposed changes would
disproportionately impact smaller businesses and startups, favoring
larger firms with more resources. Commenters also expressed concern
over the impact on nonprofits. A commenter reported nonprofit
organizations generally cannot match private sector salaries and
instead rely on mission-driven work and access to diverse, global
talent. The commenter expressed concern that if international students
and researchers perceive the U.S. as unstable or high-risk, they may
choose other countries with more predictable study and employment
pathways, and this would harm not only higher education institutions
but also the nonprofit sector that depends on these individuals'
skills. Commenters were also concerned about reduced efficiency of R&D
companies as a result of the proposal. A commenter noted that
fulfilling the goal of the CHIPS Act requires talent to staff new
factories and design centers. Commenters expressed concern that the
proposed rule would make it more difficult for foreign students to
apply for OPT, which they stated contributes to U.S. companies and the
economy through post-graduation employment, taxes paid, and
consumption. Commenters expressed concern about disruptions to the
workforce and talent pipeline due to status uncertainties, particularly
in the overlap between OPT and H-1B cycles and noted that losing
foreign student employees would reduce service reliability.
Some commenters stated that the rule could undermine the quality
and continuity of federally supported research datasets, as it would
make it harder to distinguish genuine dropouts from visa-related exits.
Commenters further stated the rule could lead to a ``brain drain,''
with international talent choosing other countries with more
streamlined and supportive systems. A commenter cited data showing that
since 2000, the United States has lost 20 percent of its share of
foreign students to countries like Australia, Canada, and the United
Kingdom, and stated this will only worsen if international enrollment
drops further.\150\ Commenters remarked the proposed rule could erode
U.S. soft power and diplomatic efforts, potentially creating a feedback
loop by which future leaders in other nations would not advocate for
studying or working in the United States and shaking the confidence of
allies and global investors. Comparisons with competitor countries
suggested the proposed rule would make the U.S. system more rigid,
risky, and bureaucratic, especially as China surpasses the United
States in research positions and doctoral degrees. For example, a
commenter stated that the United States is currently producing far
fewer STEM graduates than its competitors, namely China and India, and
provided the following data: China produces approx. 3 million STEM
undergraduates annually--nearly 7 times the U.S. total; India produces
approx. 2.3 million STEM undergraduates per year--more than 5 times the
U.S. total; the United States,
[[Page 45007]]
by comparison, produces approx. 430,000 STEM undergraduates annually,
with approx. 330,000 of those being U.S. citizens. Additionally, the
commenter added that at the graduate level, the United States awards
approx. 140,000 master's and approx. 32,000 Ph.D.s. in STEM per year,
in comparison to approx. 500,000 master's and approx. 77,000 Ph.D.s. in
China; and approx. 200,000 master's and approx. 17,000 Ph.D.s. in
India.\151\ Commenters stated that pushing technical talent away from
the United States harms our innovation base, defense industrial
capacity, and long-term national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ The commenter provided the following reference: ``HolonIQ.
(2023, April 12). US international education in 2030: 6 charts, top
20 source countries and preliminary forecast [Research note].
HolonIQ. https://www.holoniq.com/notes/us-international-education-in-2030-6-charts-top-20-source-countries-and-preliminary-forecast.''
\151\ The commenter did not provide citations or references to
the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also noted the importance of international talent for
national security and defense research, with a significant proportion
of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) researchers
holding nonimmigrant visas. They cautioned that restricting this talent
could force defense contractors to seek alternatives abroad and that
knowledge gained in the United States could be used in countries such
as China, Russia, or Iran. One commenter estimated an increased risk of
taxpayer funded research failing due to lack of talent.
Some commenters argued that concerns about displacement or wage
suppression could be better addressed through fair-wage enforcement,
oversight of work authorization programs, and investments in domestic
training rather than restricting international talent. Commenters
referenced research and policy analysis from organizations such as the
New American Economy and Georgetown's CSET, noting that other countries
are actively competing for foreign students by expanding English-
language coursework, increasing subsidies, and offering more flexible
pathways for study and work. A commenter also cited research showing
that high-skilled immigration generates positive externalities,
including peer effects, entrepreneurship, and the formation of
innovation clusters that benefit the broader U.S. economy.
A few commenters also noted the impact on specific sectors, such as
summer camps, which rely on international counselors, and expressed
concern that the proposed rule would create financial consequences for
these organizations. Another commenter indicated that while J-1 and I
nonimmigrants typically engage in short-term, narrowly defined
programs, F-1 students rely on longer-term academic programs with
predictable timelines to plan coursework, research, and employment
opportunities. The commenter stated that applying the same restrictive
rule across all these categories of nonimmigrants fails to account for
these differences and undermines the flexibility that makes U.S. higher
education globally attractive.
Response: DHS acknowledges the contributions that foreign students
and workers can make to the United States' scientific, technological,
and economic leadership, and the concerns that changes to the period of
admission and related requirements could affect the ability of the
United States to attract foreign students and exchange visitors. DHS
also acknowledges the role foreign students and exchange visitors can
play in innovation, entrepreneurship, and the broader research
ecosystem and further acknowledges their contributions to nonprofits.
The rule is designed to provide clear, predictable periods of stay
as is required for most other nonimmigrant visas, and a transparent
process for extensions, enabling students, exchange visitors,
institutions, and other affected parties to plan accordingly. DHS is
balancing the important role foreign students and exchange visitors
play in the U.S. research enterprise with the need for program
integrity, prevention of fraud and abuse, and enhanced national
security. DHS also notes that there are other avenues available for
employers to hire foreign workers, including employment-based visa
categories, which remain unchanged by this rule. DHS notes that foreign
student visas are not primarily for the purpose of employment, but
rather for intellectual pursuits, and if desired, to receive some
practical experience to take back to their home countries.
DHS also recognizes commenters' concerns that increased
administrative requirements could disrupt the labor pipeline and
innovation ecosystem, especially as other countries actively compete
for foreign students and researchers. DHS acknowledges research showing
that high-skilled immigration can generate positive externalities--such
as entrepreneurship, peer effects, and innovation clusters--that
benefit the broader U.S. economy and society; however, employers should
utilize the appropriate employment-based and investment-based visas to
fulfill their employment needs. DHS disagrees with the comments that F
nonimmigrants, unlike J and I nonimmigrants, have longer, more
structured programs. Exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) come here for
various programs that can be as short as one month and as long as seven
years and are highly structured by the sponsors. The majority of I visa
holders, as stated elsewhere in this rule, stay for less than 240 days.
However, there are some I visa holders that come for long-term
assignments and will need to request EOS or travel abroad to extend
their stay. DHS remains committed to minimizing unnecessary
administrative burdens while also upholding national security and the
integrity of the United States visa system.
c. Contributions of Foreign Students and Workers
Comments: Commenters explained foreign students contribute
significantly to the U.S. economy, including through tuition, fees,
living expenses, and spending in sectors such as housing, food,
transportation, healthcare, and retail, supporting local jobs and
bringing billions of dollars annually to the economy. A commenter wrote
that foreign students create jobs by creating companies and invest in
American communities. Commenters said over 1 million foreign students
contribute more than $40 billion to the U.S. economy annually and
support hundreds of thousands of jobs. Commenters also said higher
education is the seventh-largest service export for the United States
and that foreign students and their families drive demand in travel,
accommodation, and related industries while also contributing to
volunteer work, support of local charities, and membership in religious
congregations. Commenters were concerned about even modest decreases in
enrollment have ripple effects.
Several commenters highlighted that foreign students often remain
in the United States after graduation, becoming taxpayers, homeowners,
employers, and a key part of the STEM workforce and U.S. Ph.D. holders.
They described the positive impact of high-skill immigration on
productivity and economic growth, with studies estimating substantial
increases in GDP from the influx of highly skilled graduates.
Commenters stated foreign students contribute significantly to U.S.
research output, STEM innovation, and entrepreneurship even after
graduation.
Another commenter stated that the proposed rule would deter global
talent, disrupt federally funded research, and harm universities
already facing enrollment decline. Commenters expressed concern that
the proposed rule could lead to declines in foreign student enrollment,
resulting in significant economic losses, job reductions, and higher
compliance and
[[Page 45008]]
administrative costs for businesses and institutions. Other commenters
reported much higher projected annual losses. Commenters warned that
these costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers and taxpayers.
Citing various analyses, commenters projected billions in lost revenue
annually and tens of thousands of lost jobs if enrollment drops. They
also noted that previous restrictive immigration policies have already
driven students to competitor countries such as Canada.
Response: DHS acknowledges the contributions of foreign students
and scholars to the U.S. economy, research, and technology sectors. DHS
agrees that foreign students can bring valuable global talent and
recognizes their role in supporting local economies, creating jobs, and
driving innovation across a range of industries.
DHS does not intend for the rule to lead to a significant decline
in foreign student enrollment because the high-quality education,
research opportunities, and innovation ecosystem offered at U.S.
institutions will continue to attract foreign students and researchers.
Therefore, DHS does not expect a significant reduction in research
capabilities, technological advancement, or the economic benefits
associated with foreign students.
DHS acknowledges that there may be costs for stakeholders related
to compliance, recruiting, and training as they familiarize themselves
with the new rule. However, DHS believes that the benefits of this rule
outweigh these costs. This rule will strengthen the integrity of the
U.S. immigration system, improve consistency across nonimmigrant
categories, and enable stronger oversight by government officers
reviewing EOS requests and compliance with visa terms. It will also
enhance the government's ability to enforce statutory inadmissibility
grounds related to unlawful presence and deter fraud and abuse with
these nonimmigrant programs. Accordingly, DHS believes these changes
will provide additional protection and mechanisms for effective
oversight, enforcement of immigration laws, detection of national
security concerns, and the continued integrity of these nonimmigrant
categories.
d. State and Institutional Economic Impact
Comments: Several commenters provided extensive data on the
economic contributions of foreign students to specific states and
regions across the country. These contributions ranged from tens of
millions to billions of dollars, with corresponding job creation in the
thousands. For example, several commenters stated that foreign students
contributed $2.4 billion and supported over 23,000 jobs in Illinois,
$1.5 billion with approximately 12,000 jobs in Michigan, and $2.5
billion with 22,112 jobs in Texas during the 2023-24 academic year (no
source provided). Many commenters offered similar economic impact data
for numerous other states and territories.
Commenters also remarked on the economic contributions of foreign
students to specific educational institutions. Commenters provided
examples such as the University of St. Thomas ($25.3 million and 244
jobs), Bradley University ($15.3 million and 151 jobs), Emory
University ($187.2 million and 2,136 jobs), Rochester Institute of
Technology ($124 million and 1,279 jobs), Cornell University ($393.2
million and over 3,500 jobs), and several others. One commenter
referenced a Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia report indicating
that colleges and universities function as ``anchor institutions'' that
create American jobs and support sustainable regional economies, with a
national multiplier effect of 1.82 jobs for every direct position.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ The commenter referenced https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/community-development/reports/anchor-economy-report-92022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters acknowledged that DHS has considered the impact of
the proposed rule on small school entities, but specifically expressed
concerns that DHS did not consider the significant harm on small
businesses resulting from reduction in foreign student enrollment due
to the proposed rule. A commenter noted that small businesses cannot
afford disruptions caused by sudden visa expirations or bureaucratic
delays in status extension processing.
Response: DHS acknowledges commenters' data and examples
illustrating the economic contributions of foreign students to states,
regions, and local communities. DHS acknowledges that foreign students
and professionals can provide important economic benefits across the
country. DHS understands that any potential reduction in enrollment
could reduce the economic benefits that foreign students and exchange
visitors offer. However, DHS does not believe that admitting certain
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors for a fixed admission
period and requiring them to take action to extend their stay in the
United States will deter significant numbers of bona fide students and
exchange visitors. DHS expects foreign students and exchange visitors
to consider the cost of extending their status in the context of the
overall cost of their program, which may include expenses such as
tuition, room and board, textbooks, and discretionary expenses. Because
the cost of status extension is relatively small to the overall cost of
attendance, DHS does not intend for this rule to have a significant
impact on enrollment. DHS has decided to discuss this impact
qualitatively due to the speculative nature of the magnitude of the
decrease in enrollment and any associated reduction in revenue. This
discussion can be found in the final regulatory impact analysis,
completed as part of this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Consular Policy Changes
Comments: Commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule could
lead to a decrease in investment in the United States by other
countries, increased misunderstanding, and less support for American
interests and values among people in other countries. Other commenters
expressed concern that the proposal represents a unilateral breach of
many bilateral exchange agreements and would invite retaliatory
treatment.
Another commenter expressed concern about the proposed elimination
of D/S provisions, particularly when combined with recent consular
policy changes. The commenter identified three changes within DoS that
would create significant barriers for foreign students and scholars:
requiring visa applicants to interview in their country of nationality
or residence, narrowing interview-waiver eligibility, and reducing visa
validity periods. The commenter warned of potentially driving
prospective applicants to choose other countries for their education
and research opportunities, and suggested either reconsidering the D/S
proposal, or coordinating with DoS to restore more flexible visa
policies.
Response: DHS acknowledges commenters' concerns that the rule could
affect international perceptions of the United States, decrease
investment, and reduce support for American interests and values
abroad. DHS also notes the concern about the potential impact on
bilateral exchange agreements and the risk of retaliatory treatment by
other countries. While DHS does not believe the rule constitutes a
breach of such agreements, DHS remains committed to honoring U.S.
international commitments and values ongoing international educational
exchange.
With respect to recent changes in DoS consular policies, DHS notes
that such
[[Page 45009]]
matters are within the discretion of DoS. DHS coordinates with DoS, as
appropriate, on issues affecting foreign students and scholars.
DHS believes it is important to adequately screen and vet
nonimmigrants for any national security concerns and to verify at more
frequent intervals that nonimmigrants comply with their visa
requirements and intended purpose of their stay. Admitting F-1
nonimmigrants for a fixed period under this rule will provide trained
immigration officers with the opportunity to adequately vet foreign
nationals to prevent and deter nefarious actors and visa violators from
entering or remaining in the United States.
DHS acknowledges that prospective applicants may choose other
countries for their education and research opportunities and that
enrollment of foreign students in U.S. educational institutions may
decline because of this rule. However, DHS does not intend for the rule
to result in a significant decline of enrollment and is unable to
quantify the extent of this decline due to lack of precedent from which
accurate conclusions can be drawn as to the rule's impact. DHS believes
that U.S. educational institutions will continue to attract talented
foreign students because such institutions offer a high-quality
education.
C. Foreign Comment Submissions
Comment: Commenters expressed differing views on the participation
of foreign nationals in the comment submission process; however, most
of these comments recommended preventing foreign nationals from
submitting comments. Many commenters highlighted concerns about
organized efforts on Chinese social media platforms encouraging
submissions to regulations.gov. Conversely, another commenter wrote
that foreign students studying in the United States would be directly
affected by the proposed rule and could provide valuable perspectives
for DHS to consider.
Response: DHS appreciates the differing views expressed by
commenters regarding foreign nationals' participation in the comment
submission process. DHS acknowledges concerns about organized efforts
on foreign social media platforms, and it also recognizes that foreign
nationals, including foreign students, provide valuable perspectives.
DHS notes that the rule does not address or restrict who may submit
comments. In fact, foreign entities, NGOs, and nonimmigrants have
indeed submitted comments to this rule. DHS welcomes feedback from all
stakeholders and remains committed to reviewing all submissions to
ensure the final rule reflects a considered approach.
D. Alternative Approaches, Requests, and Recommendations
1. Recommendations To Withdraw, Reduce the Scope, or Postpone the
Proposed Rule
Comments: Commenters urged DHS to withdraw the proposed rule
entirely and maintain the current D/S framework or take a different
approach. Commenters suggested maintaining D/S for institutions with a
history of SEVIS compliance, applying the proposed changes to only a
subset of visa categories.
Response: DHS understands the concerns presented by the commenters
but is not withdrawing the rule. DHS believes that changing the
admission period of aliens in F, J, and I nonimmigrant status to a
fixed time period will not harm students or others but will instead
provide additional and necessary protections and mechanisms that DHS
needs to exercise appropriate oversight and safeguard the integrity of
these nonimmigrant programs. In addition, DHS determined that a ``do
nothing/no action'' alternative would not adequately provide
immigration officers and agents with an opportunity to evaluate an
alien's maintenance of status at pre-determined points, nor would it
enable immigration officers or agents an opportunity to assess whether
an alien is accruing unlawful presence. It would not address the fraud
and abuse currently present in these categories. DHS disagrees with the
notion of having different standards for institutions based on their
history of SEVIS compliance. DHS believes such an approach would
undermine the ability of institutions and aliens to understand their
requirements and responsibilities and would create an arbitrary system.
2. Alternative Approaches To Address DHS Concerns
Comments: Many commenters advocated for enhanced oversight
mechanisms that would avoid burdening students and USCIS with increased
EOS filings. Commenter suggestions included strengthening DSO and ARO
liaison practices, improving data reconciliation, and conducting
targeted investigations rather than implementing a fixed admission
period. They described the existing vetting processes and the role of
institutional staff and argued that DHS failed to identify concrete
problems with D/S oversight not already addressed by SEVIS. Commenters
referenced a 2022 GAO report \153\ recommending SEVIS enhancements and
suggested DHS should have explored improving SEVIS before abandoning D/
S. Other commenters stated that ending D/S is the wrong tool for
eliminating abuse of CPT and OPT. The majority of those commenters
stated that targeting schools that profit by prioritizing CPT over
education would be a more effective approach than those offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Commenters referenced GAO 23-106114, supra note 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others stated that the government should instead enhance auditing,
strengthen school certification audits and fraud detection, expand data
analytics in SEVIS to identify risk and anomalies, increase penalties
for those who abuse the system, enhance DoS vetting, improve data
sharing, apply data-driven triggers, and expand use of biometric exit
tracking at ports of entry.
Response: DHS considered a variety of alternatives to the proposed
rule, as explained in the published NPRM, but concluded that
eliminating the D/S framework and switching to fixed time periods for
F, J, and I nonimmigrants was ultimately the most effective method of
addressing intertwined national security, fraud, and overstay concerns.
DHS believes that the provisions in the rule will provide the
government with additional protections and mechanisms to exercise the
oversight necessary to vigorously enforce the nation's immigration
laws, protect the integrity of these categories, and promptly detect
national security concerns.
DHS agrees with commenters that there will be an increase in volume
of EOS applications received by USCIS following the effective date of
the final rule as those nonimmigrants who are required to file EOS
begin to do so. However, DHS notes that the peak volume of EOS
applications will not materialize until 4 years after the effective
date of this rule. This will allow time for DHS to shift resources as
needed and as appropriate to ensure that the larger increased volumes
are integrated into existing workflows. USCIS will continue to monitor
its resource allocations and make adjustments as appropriate.
Several commenters have noted and DHS has acknowledged backlogs in
the processing of EOS applications. While the rule may cause an
increase in USCIS processing times, DHS believes that the benefits of
increased contact with these nonimmigrants outweigh processing time
considerations. Such is the burden
[[Page 45010]]
of robust enforcement of the law. Requiring F, J, and I nonimmigrants
to request an EOS will improve consistency of terms of admissions
between nonimmigrant categories, enable stronger oversight by
government officers who will review the nonimmigrant's request and
assess whether the nonimmigrant had been complying with the terms and
conditions of his or her status, enhance the government's ability to
effectively enforce the statutory inadmissibility grounds related to
unlawful presence, and deter aliens and entities from engaging in fraud
and abuse within these nonimmigrant programs.
SEVIS currently serves as a system to house school, program
sponsor, student, exchange visitor, employment, and academic program
information. DHS has found that the current framework for program
extensions presents vulnerabilities and risks to national security,
with inconsistencies in collected information. DHS is well aware of the
2022 GAO report and has made changes based on the recommendations in
the GAO report; however, DHS has found that these changes have not been
enough to prevent the fraud, abuse, and national security issues
outlined in the NPRM. The fixed time period of admission and subsequent
EOS process, formally adjudicated by USCIS, will ensure students
continue to engage in and complete their programs for legitimate
reasons. DHS views the new framework as supplementary to existing SEVIS
reporting and will continue to utilize SEVP Field Representatives and
investigative authorities to address fraud and national security
threats.
Comments: Commenters suggested enhanced training for DSOs and AROs
as an alternative solution, proposing certification programs with
regular continuing education updates, national compliance standards,
best practices sharing platforms, and mentorship programs. Another
commenter proposed an institutional accountability and partnership
model featuring enhanced DSO/ARO certification with mandatory training
requirements, tiered DSO authority levels, and performance
accountability measures as an alternative to the rule. Some commenters
recommended refining existing SEVP training to focus on practical
subject matter and fraud prevention, with specialized tracks for
different educational contexts.
Response: While DHS appreciates that DSOs and AROs generally
interact frequently with nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors,
DHS believes it is appropriate for DHS, not DSOs and AROs, to determine
periodically whether an alien meets the statutory requirements for
their nonimmigrant status--i.e., an alien who continues to have a
residence in a foreign country he or she has no intention of
abandoning, is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of
study, training, or program, and who seeks to enter the United States
temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of
study, training, or program. By implementing a fixed period of
admission and requiring EOS thereafter, DHS will be in a position to
assess whether a nonimmigrant continues to meet the requirements for F-
1 or J-1nonimmigrant status. Extending an alien's nonimmigrant status
involves an adjudication of whether an alien is legally eligible to
extend his or her stay in the United States in a given immigration
status and has been complying with the terms and conditions of his or
her admission. As discussed in the NPRM, DHS officers are uniquely
positioned to determine whether an alien is complying with the
conditions of their classification \154\ and that these functions
should not be delegated to DSOs and AROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ See 90 FR at 42078 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Commenters also proposed institutional accountability
measures, including financial penalties for institutions enabling
program abuse and certification suspension for repeated violations.
Furthermore, some commenters suggested implementing a tiered fee
structure or waivers to prevent disproportionate harm to smaller
schools.
Response: DHS appreciates the suggestion to consider accountability
measures and improvements to SEVP's school certification requirements.
However, DHS disagrees that the fraud and abuse discussed in the rule
relates solely to fraudulent institutions and does not relate to fraud
or violations by students. DHS believes that amending school
certification requirements would not be sufficient to address the
challenges the D/S framework poses to DHS's ability to effectively
oversee F-1 students and to hold students accountable for fraud or
status violations that may go undetected or unreported by a DSO. DHS
believes that by fixing a date certain period of admission for F-1
students, DHS will be in a position to provide greater oversight and
accountability for students who have engaged in pay-to-stay and other
fraud. This will ensure that nonimmigrant students receive timely and
appropriate consequences for engaging in fraud as do other nonimmigrant
classifications when fraud or status violations are uncovered by DHS. A
system of waivers or a tiered fee structure would add complication to
the rule, making enforcement more difficult and creating more chances
for fraud and abuse. A system that is equal across the population will
ensure consistent enforcement in line with the rule's goals.
Comments: Commenters suggested streamlined extension procedures
with presumptive approval categories for students in good standing,
featuring reduced processing times, lower fees, and an automated online
application system. The commenters proposed special provisions for
academic progression extensions and emergency or compassionate
extensions for medical circumstances, program closures, or natural
disasters. A commenter reasoned that risk-based checks using data-
driven vetting would reduce administrative burden for over 90 percent
of individuals. If the rule's fixed terms remain, the same commenter
proposed a ``simple, fast renewal process,'' suggesting a fully
digitized system with guaranteed turnaround (e.g., 60 days) and minimal
in-person interviews to streamline compliance.
Response: DHS appreciates the suggestions proposed by the
commenters. However, DHS believes that the changes implemented through
this final rule will accommodate the legitimate academic activities of
bona fide students, such as a desire to pursue a different field of
study or more specialized studies in their current field. These changes
will also provide SEVP with flexibility to grant exceptions for
extenuating circumstances. For example, an exception may be appropriate
when a school closes or when a school has a prolonged inability to hold
in-person classes due to a natural disaster or other causes. DHS will
only extend the stay beyond the program end date of an otherwise
eligible F-1 student requesting additional time to complete their
program if the additional time needed is due to a compelling academic
reason, documented medical illness or medical condition, or
circumstance that was beyond the nonimmigrant student's control as
discussed in the new sec. 214.2(f)(7)(i)(C)(2). An alien seeking an EOS
generally must have continually maintained status. If an F-1 student
dropped below a full course of study, that drop must have been properly
authorized by the DSO. F-1 students seeking an EOS must primarily be
seeking to temporarily stay in the United States solely to pursue a
full course of study, INA section
[[Page 45011]]
101(a)(15)(F)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i), and not for other reasons
separate from, or in addition to, pursuing a full course of study. If
an F-1 student were to violate the terms of his or her F-1 status, the
F-1 student will need to apply to USCIS for reinstatement, consistent
with current 8 CFR 214.2(f)(16). In response to the commenter's
suggestions regarding the use of data-driven vetting, DHS agrees that
data-driven vetting is a necessary part of effectively vetting a
nonimmigrant. However, DHS believes that data-driven vetting is only
part of the whole process, which, necessarily, must include immigration
officers as they are uniquely equipped to vet nonimmigrants seeking to
enter the United States.
3. Alternative Approaches Related to the Fixed Admission Period
Comments: Commenters suggested that D/S should be tied to certain
programs or that the length of admission should depend on the duration
of different programs. Specifically, a commenter suggested implementing
program duration standards with flexibility, by establishing baseline
program periods for different degree types while also allowing
extensions based on documented academic progress, legitimate academic
reasons, and financial standing. The commenter reasoned this approach
would require SEVP approval for extensions beyond 150 percent of normal
program duration through a streamlined online application process with
a 30-day processing standard. Another commenter suggested tying D/S to
program length, with a 60-day grace period to prevent disruptions.
Another commenter urged DHS to amend 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i) to say,
``[d]octoral admission period shall be up to seven years, with renewal
based on academic progress,'' and ``EOS eliminated for students
maintaining valid enrollment'' under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(iii).
Multiple commenters wrote that the proposed rule takes a system
that works with how universities are currently governed and cuts across
it; noting that the proposed rule does not consider governance and
scientific realities which necessitate multi-year protocols. Some
commenters continued to state that a fixed duration status creates a
bureaucratic chokepoint that limits research and teaching.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' recommendations but will
not be implementing a percentage-based approach in requiring
applications for extensions of stay at this time. DHS believes that a
fixed period of authorized stay based on program length, with a maximum
of four years and a 30-day grace period, provides a uniform standard to
ensure compliance with the immigration laws and provide the national
security protections this rule is implementing with greater oversight
of student compliance, regardless of program type. Students will still
be able to apply for an EOS based on a program length of longer than
their initial admission or compelling academic reasons, documented
illness or medical condition, or circumstances outside the alien's
control.\155\ And, as long as they timely file their EOS application,
their stay is automatically extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(i)(C)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Commenters proposed different time frames for fixed
period admissions based on different degrees and different fields,
including extending the default admission period to 5 years for
undergraduate, 3 years for master's programs, and 5 to 8 years doctoral
students, and longer periods for STEM in comparison to non-STEM fields.
Commenters suggested doctoral programs, particularly those at R1
research universities, and professional programs like medicine,
dentistry, and architecture should be exempt from fixed duration
periods.
If the proposed rule is finalized, commenters suggested expanding
domestic visa renewal programs to mitigate consular processing
bottlenecks, granting foreign students D/S that includes additional
semesters beyond standard program length, and increasing D/S to 10 or
12 years to accommodate multiple degrees and OPT.
Response: DHS declines to adopt commenters proposed alternative
periods of admission. DHS wishes to establish predetermined points in
time, not to exceed 4 years, for immigration officers to directly
evaluate whether F-1 students are maintaining their nonimmigrant status
and remain eligible for that status. For those who require additional
time to complete their programs, they may apply to extend their stay.
DHS acknowledges the commenters' concerns that applying for EOS to
participate in post-completion OPT will represent an increased burden
for some students but has concluded the change is appropriate to
advance the goals of this rulemaking.
DHS disagrees with the premise of recommendations regarding
exemptions and believes that the commenters misunderstand how this
would work for these nonimmigrants. An exemption is not necessary for
Ph.D. students who need additional time to complete their research and
dissertation, because DSOs will still be able to extend the program end
date in situations such as this. This is also true for other students
who must extend their programs due to situations beyond their control.
They will, however, have to file an EOS with USCIS or, if they choose
to travel, they can (with an unexpired visa) apply for admission at a
POE through CBP and receive a new I-94 with a new AUD.
Comments: Multiple commenters provided alternative suggestions or
recommendations to a fixed admission period that would eliminate or
impose additional restrictions and oversight on admission of foreign
students, while citing national security and economic concerns. A
commenter suggested implementing a 10 percent limit on foreign student
enrollment. Another recommended that foreign students should constitute
less than 1 percent of the total student population in the United
States. One commenter remarked that immigration entry rates must be
reduced, reasoning that U.S. citizens already face hurdles with respect
to higher education and obtaining a job. A few commenters suggested
eliminating foreign student visas and admissions altogether due to the
abuse of the foreign student program, foreign students taking the place
of American students, and foreign students coming to the U.S. to spy,
steal intellectual property or cause harm.
Relatedly, a different individual proposed establishing an annual
limit that would reduce by half the number of individuals permitted to
enter the United States from ``unfriendly countries.'' One commenter
stated that students from hostile countries should not be allowed in
the United States, while another commenter remarked that all foreign
students should be restricted and tracked while in the United States.
One commenter suggested limiting admission of nonimmigrants from
countries on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list to a maximum of 2
years. A commenter recommended that certain foreign nationals, those
involved in theft of technology and sabotage, should be intensely
scrutinized and possibly not allowed to enter the United States.
Some commenters sought to have visas severely curtailed or limited,
reasoning that qualified Americans are displaced in education programs
and the workplace. Along these lines, one commenter recommended more
restrictions on foreign access to universities, jobs, and housing
markets. A commenter recommended limiting foreign student visas in
number and duration, reasoning that foreign
[[Page 45012]]
individuals do not have a ``right'' to access and use American
universities. Relatedly, one commenter recommended a limit on allowing
legal foreign-born immigrants into undergraduate and graduate programs
nationally because this limit would allow acceptance of more U.S.
citizens into programs instead. One commenter urged DHS to strengthen
protections for American workers by implementing more rigorous
credential verification processes, requiring genuine labor market
testing to demonstrate actual need, and establishing wage floors that
prevent the undercutting of American workers.
Commenters stated that foreign students or visitors should return
to their country after their studies and apply for any extensions of
stay outside of the United States, instead of serving as a pathway to
work visas, residency or citizenship. Another commenter remarked that
extensions must be thoroughly reviewed and visa end terms strictly
enforced by USCIS and DHS, otherwise visa holders will stay forever.
One individual suggested a fixed time period with no extensions or
waivers for nonimmigrant students, exchange visitors, and foreign media
members. Commenters who supported the rule offered various
implementation recommendations, including limiting periods of stay to
360 days with the possibility of renewal, withdrawing visas if students
fail to complete their first academic year, requiring students to
return to their home countries to apply for extensions, and increasing
resources for enforcement. A commenter remarked that visas need to be
tightly controlled, and there need to be consequences for abusing them.
Separately, one commenter suggested sending professors to other
countries per semester/year instead of allowing students to study in
the United States.
Response: This rule DHS is focusing specifically on the fixed
admission periods rather than imposing caps or banning admissions. As
explained in the rule, DHS believes that the changes in this rule will
strengthen the integrity of the U.S. immigration system, specifically
relating to F, J, and I nonimmigrants, and curtail fraud, abuse
(including overstays), and national security issues. DHS declines to
eliminate the admission of F, J, and I nonimmigrants across the board,
declines to eliminate extensions, and declines to require the
nonimmigrants to return to their home country to apply for an EOS. DHS
acknowledges the contributions of foreign students and scholars in the
United States and believes that this rule strikes a balance for all
stakeholders. DHS further underscores that the fixed admission period
and extension provisions in this rule will enhance the vetting and
oversight of these nonimmigrant classifications. DHS will continue to
evaluate the resources it requires to enforce these classifications and
will adjust resources as needed for this enforcement.
Furthermore, DHS notes this Administration is separately
implementing additional measures to impose travel restrictions and
limitations for nationals from certain countries posing national
security threats at a broader level, beyond the F, J, and I
nonimmigrant classifications. For example, pursuant to the Presidential
Proclamation 10949, Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals To
Protect the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National
Security and Public Safety Threats, 90 FR 24497 (June 10, 2025),
nationals from 19 high-risk countries listed in Proclamation 10949 are
already subject to enhanced vetting and heightened travel restrictions,
including limiting and suspending entry to the United States. Pursuant
to Proclamation 10949, DHS has further issued a Policy Memorandum which
places a hold on all pending benefit requests for aliens from High-Risk
Countries listed in Proclamation 10949.\156\ Given that there are
broader efforts being undertaken to limit and restrict the entry of
aliens from high-risk countries, DHS is not including any specific
provisions regarding F, J, and I nonimmigrant classifications from
countries on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list at this time in this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ See USCIS, USCIS Policy Memorandum: Hold and Review of all
Pending Asylum Applications and all USCIS Benefit Applications Filed
by Aliens from High-Risk Countries, PM-602-0192 (Dec. 2, 2025),
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-alerts/PM-602-0192-PendingApplicationsHighRiskCountries-20251202.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to extension requirements, DHS considered many options
when promulgating this rule, including some of those suggested by these
commenters. Requiring yearly extensions was in place decades ago and
proved unworkable from an operational standpoint; therefore, this
policy was not proposed in the NPRM. Creating a different time frame,
specifically two years, for certain categories of people was also
rejected. DHS considered this option but concluded 4 years was more
appropriate given the greater administrative burdens which would be
imposed on USCIS and CBP.\157\ DHS finds that limiting the period of
stay to anything below the program end date or 4 years, whichever is
shorter, would be too burdensome to nonimmigrants and the government,
because the suggested 1 year and 2 year limits would increase the
number of EOS requests by a significant number and would be
unmanageable just as it was in the 1970s and 80's.\158\ Additionally,
if nonimmigrants return home upon the end of their stay and still have
a valid F, J or I visa, they may reenter the country and receive a new
I-94. The purpose of the EOS request is to allow them to remain in the
country while extending their nonimmigrant status, ensuring continuity
in program or employment. Students who fail to maintain their student
status will no longer be in compliance with their nonimmigrant status
and begin accruing unlawful status. This would make them subject to
removal proceedings if they do not leave the country upon falling out
of status. While DHS considered all proposals and recommendations, DHS
determined that the provisions of this rule were sufficient to address
the concerns raised in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 90 FR at 42083 (Aug. 28, 2025).
\158\ See more detailed discussion in Section II.A above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS notes that the scope of this rule focuses on admission period
and EOS procedures for F, J, and I nonimmigrant classifications, and
does not include changes to employment visas. Furthermore, DHS notes
that the issue on whether foreign nationals are displacing U.S.
students and workers is beyond the scope of this rule and as such, DHS
is unable to comment further on that issue. Likewise, issues regarding
restrictions on access to housing market by foreign nationals are also
outside of the scope of this rule.
4. Alternative Approaches for Long-Term Students
Comments: Another commenter requested that DHS establish a pathway
to lawful permanent residency for foreign students who have maintained
legal status and are raising U.S. citizen children. Commenters
suggested longer alternatives to the 4-year admission period, such as
requiring an EOS if an individual remains in F-1 status for 10 years. A
commenter recommended a rule that allows DHS to review the F-1 status
of any student whose stay has exceeded 8 years and requires those
students to submit information confirming continued academic progress.
However, the commenter suggested this 8-year rule should not be
triggered for students who have completed their degree and began OPT.
[[Page 45013]]
Similarly, a commenter recommended establishing frameworks for
investigating students who meet specific criteria, such as those
spending over 15 years in F-1 or J-1 status. Relatedly, other proposals
included setting realistic limits on program extensions and requiring
EOS applications only for students wishing to stay longer than 11
years.
Response: DHS acknowledges these commenters' concerns. The request
to establish a pathway to lawful permanent residency for certain F-1
students is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Further, DHS believes
that the other recommendations are not sufficient to address the issues
addressed in the rule. A proposal targeting students who stay more than
four years and requiring an EOS at a longer interval would dimmish the
effectiveness of the rule in its enhancement of national security and
its deterrence from overstays and fraud.
5. Requests for Exemptions
Comments: Commenters recommended exemptions for certain groups of
F-1 visa holders. For example, a commenter requested that DHS include
exemptions or waivers for long-term F-1 nonimmigrants who are parents
of U.S. citizen children or another suggested a path to permanent
residency for parents of U.S. citizen children. A commenter urged DHS
to exempt F visa holders from the June 4, 2025, Presidential
Proclamation ``Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect
the United States from Foreign Terrorists and other National Security
and Public Safety Threats'' and to also exempt any future travel bans
offered by the administration.
Response: DHS declines to adopt the suggestion that certain
populations of students or exchange visitors, such as F-1 nonimmigrants
who are parents of U.S. citizen children, be exempt from the fixed
period of admission or receive any special pathways to permanent
residency outside those in other well-established regulatory
provisions. The goals of the rule extend to all F-1 or J-1
nonimmigrants. As explained in the NPRM, DHS has identified troubling
instances of aliens using the F classification to reside in the United
States for decades, continuously enrolling in or transferring to
schools.\159\ While these instances of extended stay may not always
result in technical violations of the law, DHS is concerned that such
stays may violate the statutory intent, given that student status is
meant to be temporary and for the primary purpose of studying, not
remaining in the United States indefinitely.\160\ Because these
instances occur in a variety of programs and educational levels, DHS
does not believe that it would be appropriate to only apply a fixed
period of admission for limited populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ See 90 FR at 42071 (Aug. 28, 2025).
\160\ See 90 FR at 42079 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS acknowledges the request to exempt F visa holders from
Presidential Proclamation ``Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals
to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and other National
Security and Public Safety Threats'' as well as from any future travel
bans. However, this request is outside the scope of this rulemaking and
unrelated to the publication of this rule.
Comments: A different commenter suggested an alternative approach
and exceptions for English Language Training (ELT) students, reasoning
that ELT varies by initial proficiency, and academic, professional, or
personal goals. The commenter also suggested separating ELT by visa
type, specifically, separating nonimmigrants students who intend to
continue to a U.S. degree program under the F nonimmigrant visa
category from short-term ELT nonimmigrant students who do not intend to
pursue a degree. The commenter shared several advantages to this
approach, including additional clarity, alignment with academic intent,
natural limits on enrollment, and support for U.S. competitiveness. The
commenter also recommended that DHS include safeguards to protect U.S.
born children of F-1 students before implementing the final rule,
warning that the forced departure of parents of U.S.-born children
could disrupt these children's education, stability, and community
ties. The commenter expressed concern that absent protection, USCIS
might adjudicate mixed-status family cases individually, creating
administrative burdens and inefficiencies.
Another commenter agreed with a fixed term but suggested that
general intensive English programs be given a maximum of three years,
with the possibility of extensions for students pursuing English for
specific purposes, provided these align with their declared academic
goals. The individual also stated that the current proposal does not
clearly address how these students would be accommodated who transition
from English as a second language (ESL) programs to a master's program
or doctoral program. The individual stated that the concern is whether
foreign students would be allowed to continue their academic journey in
the United States after the two-year cap.
Response: DHS appreciates the alternative approaches and exemptions
suggested by the commenters regarding ELT. However, DHS believes that
the mechanisms proposed in the NPRM are the most effective mechanisms
to address issues related to ELT. Furthermore, as mentioned previously,
DHS does not believe that applying exemptions or alternatives to
certain populations of nonimmigrants would be an effective way to
reduce fraud and abuse. U.S. citizen children have different rights
than their nonimmigrant parents. They may stay in the United States as
long as they wish. They may stay with relatives or travel with their
parents to their parents' home country. They may also return when they
are older and even sponsor their parents for permanent residency once
they turn 21. They do not need to be included on any EOS applications.
USCIS will adjudicate separate EOS applications for the parents only if
the parents choose to file separate applications. The Form I-539 allows
dependents (non-U.S. citizens) to be included for one fee and
concurrent adjudication.
As explained in the rule, DHS believes that a 24-month maximum stay
for F-1 students in ELT programs (including breaks and vacation), is
appropriate to accomplish the intended purpose of stay, which is
studying the English language. Given that most English language
programs are shorter than 2 years, as cited in the rule, DHS declines
to extend the period to a maximum of three years. Notably, the rule
aims to prevent F-1 nonimmigrants from abusing the immigration laws by
staying indefinitely in the United States through continuous language
programs with no limits. As noted in the rule, DHS found that some
students have enrolled in lengthy periods of language training,
sometimes for more than two decades, including after completing
undergraduate or graduate programs that require English proficiency.
The lack of standardized completion requirements for language programs
has enabled some to remain in the United States for extended periods
without progressing academically. The restrictions in this rule are
designed to ensure that only bona fide students who intend to
temporarily study English are admitted, and to mitigate concerns about
program integrity. With respect to transitioning from ESL programs to a
master's program or doctoral program, DHS notes that every case is
different and that determinations for EOS for the purpose of pursuing a
master's or doctoral program will be reviewed on a
[[Page 45014]]
case-by-case basis to determine whether the F-1 nonimmigrant is a bona
fide student. DHS also notes that most colleges and universities have
English language programs to help their foreign students to improve
their English skills for college level studies. Nothing in this rule
prohibits them from taking these classes.
6. Alternative Approaches to Oversight of Foreign Students and
Institutions
Comments: Commenters urged DHS to consider less disruptive
alternatives and recommended that DHS apply a more targeted approach
for enhanced oversight, such as school recertification risk-tiering and
fixed admission periods to high-risk institutions or students showing
signs of non-compliance, fraud, or other issues. Commenters recommended
enhanced enforcement and fraud prevention through pattern recognition
systems to detect suspicious enrollment, risk-based institutional
auditing, consequences for violations at both individual and
institutional levels, and international cooperation through information
sharing and diplomatic engagement. One commenter proposed a risk-based
tiered monitoring system that would establish a graduated framework
based on objective risk factors and student progression. Another
commenter proposed categorizing institutions as low-risk, standard-
risk, or high-risk based on compliance history, student success rates,
and financial stability indicators.
Some commenters wrote that a tier-based approach would maintain D/S
for most students while implementing progressively stricter oversight
for longer stays. Another commenter recommended distinguishing between
certain demographic groups in immigration policies and recommended that
DHS provide quotas and lenient immigration policies for foreign
students in STEM fields, while intensifying efforts to combat
immigration fraud.
Similarly, commenters called for various institutional monitoring
approaches, such as implementing registration frameworks, conducting
risk-based audits, site visits, campus visits, and scheduled visits,
establishing clear triggers for USCIS review, and focusing enforcement
efforts on actual violators. They suggested conducting spot checks at
the institutional level, including reviewing data for problematic
patterns, surveying DSOs/AROs to assess their understanding of
regulations, and requiring financial documentation for a randomized
percentage of I-20s/DS-2019s. Some commenters advocated for stronger
oversight of DSOs, expanding DSO reporting for outlier cases, enhanced
reporting in SEVIS, and periodic compliance reviews. Other commenters
called for targeted reviews of OPT cases in conjunction with DSOs,
stricter limits on CPT, improvements in OPT employer data to stop
espionage and technology transfer risks as well as ``pay-to-stay''
schemes.
On the other hand, some commenters put forward targeted approaches
such as a safe harbor for those who file a timely application for an
extension. One commenter suggested developing clearer guidelines for
what constitutes ``integral'' training for a student's curriculum,
implementing a system for increased oversight of CPT placements, and
establishing stronger penalties for non-compliant educational
institutions. This focused approach would successfully address specific
vulnerabilities without penalizing the vast majority of legitimate
students and damaging the U.S. higher education system as a whole.
Response: DHS acknowledges the commenters' various recommendations
regarding a more targeted, risk- based or tier-based approach, but
declines to adopt these alternatives to the rule. Many of these
proposals are measures that take place after the fact, i.e., after
violations or risks have been detected, whereas this rule takes both a
proactive approach to prevent violations as well as detect existing
violations. DHS already incorporates various risk factors into the
maintenance, analysis, and administration of the nonimmigrant student
and school certification lifecycles.
DHS disagrees that leveraging data in SEVIS to identify possible
student status fraud is sufficient to address fraud once it has been
identified. In addition, as stated elsewhere in the preamble to this
final rule, there is a difference between conducting oversight of
schools to ensure they are complying with reporting requirements, and
conducting oversight of students to ensure they have complied with the
terms and conditions of their admission and are eligible for an EOS. A
school may be complying with SEVIS reporting requirements, but a
particular student may still be in violation of his or her status, may
have obtained his or her status by fraud, or may otherwise be
ineligible for an EOS thereby making a tiered approach significantly
flawed as it may serve as a way for institutions or students to
sidestep the regulatory requirements. Fraud, status violations, and
other ineligibilities relating to an individual student may not involve
violations committed by a school. As a result, the school
certification, recertification, and out-of-cycle review processes may
not always identify individual student status violations, fraud, or
other ineligibilities.
In cases where a school is complicit in a student's fraud or status
violations, a school may be held accountable through criminal
prosecution or adverse action in connection with the school's SEVP
certification. However, holding schools accountable for fraud is not a
substitute for holding individual students accountable for fraud they
may have participated in or status violations they may have committed.
Additionally, as noted in the preamble of the proposed rule,\161\ DHS
has concerns regarding students at all types of academic institutions
and not only those engaged in fraud. DHS noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule that some aliens have used the F classification to reside
in the United States for lengthy periods by continuously enrolling in
or transferring between schools, a practice facilitated by the D/S
framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ See 90 FR 42077 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS is concerned about the integrity of CPT programs and any
potential for increased fraud or risk to national security. To address
these issues, DHS is amending its regulations by changing the admission
period of aliens in F, J, and I nonimmigrant status from D/S to an
admission for a fixed time period so as to provide DHS with additional
protections and mechanisms to exercise the oversight necessary to
enforce our nation's immigration laws. If DHS makes periodic
assessments to verify that F-1 students are maintaining their student
status, DHS can better detect and mitigate the risks that have been
identified in the D/S framework.
In addition, DHS also notes that there are other regulations
currently in place that allow DHS to conduct site visits of educational
institutions and employers that hire foreign nationals, which in
combination with this rule will strengthen the oversight processes and
address some concerns discussed in this comment. See, e.g., 8 CFR
214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C)(11) (site visits for OPT employers); 8 CFR
214.3(h)(1)(ii) (site visits of educational institutions for SEVP
certification).
Regarding expanding DSOs and ROs roles, as explained in the NPRM
and elsewhere in this rule, DHS believes that DSOs and ROs should not
be making determinations with respect to students' immigration status
and that such role should be placed with immigration officers.
[[Page 45015]]
Comments: For J-1 visas, commenters suggested aligning fixed
periods with existing category limitations, such as 5 years for
Research Scholars and 7 years for Alien Physicians. Commenters
recommended exempting certain professional programs like medicine,
dentistry, and architecture from arbitrary time limits due to their
specialized nature and length.
Response: DHS acknowledges that certain groups under the affected J
Visa populations have longer program lengths than the 4-year length of
stay, but to the extent these visa holders wish to stay longer, they
may timely file an EOS. DHS chooses to utilize the 4-year limit in
order to have consistent and regular reviews of all nonimmigrants who
are in the country for a lengthy period of time. Allowing for longer
lengths of stay or allowing certain groups to remain on D/S would
promote arbitrary implementation rather than consistent application
across the board and it would prevent DHS from conducting regular
reviews of nonimmigrants and prevent consistent enforcement of the
rule.
Comments: Commenters also offered alternatives to address potential
national security threats, including focused changes to F- and J-
certifications of private, for-profit institutions and increased
support and training for CBP and Consular Affairs, specifically
consular officers and visa adjudicators. The commenters further stated
that enhanced surveillance of specific individuals, particularly
students in specific fields or from certain countries; regular
interviews with campus personnel; and development of a new interagency
task force could also address potential national security threats. This
task force would also include the FBI for gathering counterintelligence
information.
Response: DHS appreciates the recommendations from commenters and
generally notes that there are inter-departmental efforts and joint
task forces with other agencies and departments that are focused on
combating national security threats. However, to the extent that the
recommendations involve other non-DHS federal agencies, DHS is unable
to comment further, as those comments are outside of DHS's
jurisdiction. In order to help mitigate national security threats, DHS
believes that this rule will best allow immigration officials to
directly and periodically vet applicants for extensions of stay and, in
so doing, confirm that they are engaged only in activities consistent
with their student status.
7. Other Alternatives
Comments: Another commenter recommended a list of implementation
safeguards that should be considered in the final rule, including:
Providing service standards and metrics, including target processing
times, request for evidence (RFE) checklists, approval/denial rates,
and backlog dashboards; making the process digital by default to
streamline integration and minimize duplication; providing reasonable
fees, fee reductions, and fee waivers; and offering time-sensitive
lanes for situations where missed windows cause irreparable harm.
Response: DHS understands that applications are time sensitive.
However, DHS does not believe that additional safeguards are needed in
this rule. DHS is continuing to explore operational alternatives to
address USCIS backlogs. DHS continually monitors workload distribution
and adjusts workloads as necessary for quality and efficiency. This
rule, while expected to increase the volume of EOS cases, is not the
first time that DHS, and USCIS in particular, has prepared for an
increase in application volume. For example, in 2012 USCIS began
accepting applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) on the new Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals, created specifically for the DACA program. In
fiscal year 2013, USCIS received 427,601 Form I-821Ds, and adjudicated
482,407 applications.\162\ DACA was a new process, representing a new
workload for the agency and the number of Form I-821Ds received in 2013
outnumber the highest estimated number of EOS estimated to be filed
annually for F-1, F-2, J-1, J-2, and I nonimmigrants each year from
2020-2029. Therefore, USCIS has recently demonstrated the capacity to
handle increased volumes of applications resulting from new or changed
programs and expects to continue to do so. DHS also notes that some
nonimmigrants may depart and reenter the United States to extend their
stay, as opposed to filing an EOS with USCIS. Further, DHS is working
on improvements to the relevant technical systems connected to this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ See USCIS, Number of I-821D, Consideration of Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals by Fiscal Year, Quarter, Intake,
Biometrics and Case Status: 2012-2015, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/I821d_performancedata_fy2015_qtr1.pdf
(last visited Feb. 4, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: While expressing concern over the proposed rule's
potential impact on international and domestic students, a commenter
suggested that USCIS could instead raise fees for all visa programs by
a small amount, such as $50. The commenter reasoned that the revenue
could be used to support travel opportunities for U.S. students.
Response: DHS appreciates the recommendations made by these
commenters for raising USCIS fees in replacement of the current rule.
However, this would not accomplish the intent of the rule. The rule is
intended to establish a regular cadence of review with DHS for all F,
J, and I nonimmigrants who are in the country for longer periods of
time. This will protect the integrity of these programs and improve
national security. The revenue raised by USCIS through the Form I-539,
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, filing fee is
intended to cover the cost of processing and adjudicating EOS and
change of status requests. DHS seeks to address vulnerabilities in the
D/S framework, and it is for this reason that DHS is making these
specific changes in this rule that will result in greater oversight of
student compliance.
E. Calculation of Admission Periods, Grace Periods, and Dependents
1. Early Program Completion Grace Periods
Comments: A commenter requested clarification on the final deciding
factor on the program end date and start date of the F-1 nonimmigrant
grace period under the proposed rule, particularly if an F-1 student
completes their program earlier than the I-20 program end date and Form
I-94 admission end date. Commenters stated the 30-day period does not
provide enough time for students to book flights where availability is
limited nor is it enough time to attain employment. Specifically the
commenter outlined two scenarios: (1) a student's Form I-20 lists a
program end date of May 31, 2027, but the student actually completes
coursework on May 15, 2027; and (2) a student is admitted with a Form
I-20 end date of May 31, 2027, and a matching AUD on the Form I-94;
however, due to advanced credits and summer coursework, the student
completes the program a full year earlier on May 15, 2026.
Response: DHS agrees on the importance of maximizing the period of
admission to apply toward the F-1 nonimmigrants' program of study. DHS
appreciates the commenter's request for clarification on the grace
period and how to resolve instances when a student completes their
program of study before the expiration date listed on the Form I-94.
[[Page 45016]]
The rule provides that the 30-day period before the indicated
report date or program start date and the 30 additional days (grace
period) following the program end date, or the 4-year maximum period of
admission, do not count toward the maximum length of stay. See new 8
CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i). Specifically, the calculation of the 4-year maximum
periods of admission would not begin from the date of admission during
the initial 30-day window, but from the program start date. Similarly,
the 30-day departure period would not count towards the 4-year maximum
period of admission. This will mitigate scenarios where an F-1 student
is in need of an EOS because their admission period is 30 days short
from the 4-year program completion date.
With respect to programs ending earlier than the date on the I-94,
a nonimmigrant student's period of admission is granted to the program
of study on Form I-20, for a maximum of four years, plus an additional
30-days period for departure. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i), (v). When a
student completes their program prior to the program end date as listed
on the Form I-20, the DSO should shorten the date in SEVIS, and the
student will have 30 days to depart the country after their program
completion, regardless of the initial admission date provided on Form
I-94. The final rule adds a provision to clarify this point, by stating
that ``if the F-1 student ends his or her study or training prior to
expiration of his or her period of admission, the F-1 student, and any
eligible dependents, must, within 30 days from the end date of the
study or training, depart the United States or otherwise seek to
maintain lawful status.'' See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v).
2. Fixed Admission Period Start and End Dates
Comments: A commenter requested clarification on the date from
which the fixed period of admission will be calculated for F-1
students, if the proposed rule is finalized. Specifically, the
commenters stated that the preamble text and proposed regulatory text
do not distinguish between the Program Start Date (or ``report date''),
and the Initial Session Start Date, which the commenters noted are
recorded separately in SEVIS and displayed separately on the I-20. The
commenters also expressed appreciation for the ability to set a Program
Start Date earlier than the actual start of classes but requested that
DHS consider calculating the period of fixed admission from the Initial
Session Start Date, which the commenters stated is the actual start of
classes for the program of study. The commenters reasoned that this
would ensure that F-1 students who are admitted for a fixed period of
admission can maximally use that period of admission toward their
program of study.
Response: DHS appreciates this opportunity to clarify how this
process works and to point out that even though there appear to be
different terminology in use, the final outcome is exactly what the
commenters desire. Specifically, the 4-year maximum will be calculated
from the date the program begins a.k.a ``program start date''--whether
first day of classes or first day of research, etc. F or J
nonimmigrants are allowed to arrive up to 30 days prior to the program
start date, but those days will not be taken into account when
calculating the maximum allowed period of stay. Upon admission into the
United States, a fixed period of stay is granted up to the program end
date, not to exceed 4 years, plus an additional 30-days for F and J
nonimmigrants to depart. DHS appreciates the suggested alternatives
provided by the commenters, but DHS believes the regulatory text is
clear and that no additional clarification is needed as the final rule
will achieve the same desired result as what the commenters were
suggesting.
3. Dependent Admission Periods
Comments: A commenter requested clarification on what would happen
under the proposed changes if a nonimmigrant student traveled
separately from their F-2 dependent, the nonimmigrant student's status
is shortened upon re-entry, and the F-2's Form I-94 reflects a longer
end date.
Response: The current regulation requiring the spouse and minor
children of an F-1 student to individually present a Form I-20 or
successor form, whether accompanying or following-to-join the F-1
student has not been impacted by this rule. DHS notes that under new 8
CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i)(E), the authorized period of stay for F-2 dependents
may not exceed the authorized period of stay of the principal F-1
student. Dependents must file for an EOS when the principal does,
cannot stay longer than the principal, and must depart if the EOS is
denied. If the principal's stay is shortened, then the dependents must
depart at the same time as the principal even if their I-94 has a
longer period of stay.
F. Transition Period
1. Transition Period Structure and Alternatives
Comments: Commenters requested a meaningful, phased transition
period, such as longer transition periods, additional time before
implementation of a final rule, phased implementation, and detailed
guidance before the effective date, to avoid immediate status
disruptions and allow institutions and employers to adapt. Many
commenters stated that the proposed 60-day transition period is too
short and would create a heavy burden for universities and students.
Suggestions included transition periods ranging from 6 months to 2
years, automatic extensions during pending applications, and safe
harbor provisions for students affected by processing delays. Another
commenter requested a 6-month to 1 year grace period before the final
rule would be enforced to allow for current students to adjust to the
new regulations. Many commenters advocated for a grandfathering
provision, allowing current and admitted students to complete their
programs and practical training under existing rules. They argued this
would reduce mid-program disruption, honor reliance interests, prevent
disruption to ongoing projects, and avoid overwhelming USCIS and
universities with extension requests. Commenters also requested that
the rule's effective date should be delayed to align with academic
cycles, H-1B cycles, or for at least 1 year from the date of
publication, and that post-completion grace periods be preserved or
extended.
Specifically, a number of commenters recommended various phased
implementation processes. One of these commenters recommended that the
proposed rule should be phased in over a minimum 24-month period.
Another commenter requested that the proposed rule be implemented with
a phased transition that includes empirical checkpoints, including
fraud detection, overstay rates, and processing performance. Similarly,
another commenter recommended maintaining D/S for all student cohorts
graduating in the 24 months following the effective date of the final
rule. One commenter recommended maintaining D/S for at least 10 years
to allow students to complete undergraduate and medical education on an
F-1 visa without bureaucratic interruptions.
Response: DHS believes commenters are confusing the transition
period with the implementation period. The transition period, which is
described in detail in the new 8 CFR 214.1(m), can
[[Page 45017]]
last up to 4 years for aliens who were admitted for D/S prior to the
rule's effective date and are properly maintaining F and J status on
September 15, 2026 and up to 90 or 240 days for I nonimmigrants who
were admitted D/S and are properly maintaining status on September 15,
2026. This will allow for a gradual transition of those admitted under
D/S and is more generous than what was proposed by some commenters.
During the 4-year transition period, F or J nonimmigrants in D/S on
the day the rule takes effect do not need to have their Form I-94
corrected to a date certain, provided they continue their studies or
programs listed on their DS-2019s or I-20s. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1).
They will be allowed to stay in D/S until the program end date on those
DS-2019s and I-20s or 4 years after the effective date of the rule,
whichever comes first. Id. However, should these F and J nonimmigrants
decide to travel abroad during this transition period, they will be
issued a new I-94 with a date certain upon their return, as will all
other F and J nonimmigrants. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)(ii).
In addition, for aliens in F-1 status, admitted in the United
States for D/S, who have timely filed Form I-765 (or successor form)
for post-completion OPT or a STEM OPT extension on or before March 18,
2027, there will not be a requirement to file an EOS application. See
new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)(i). However, if this F-1 student departs the
United States before filing the Form I-765 (or successor form) for
post-completion OPT or STEM OPT, and is subsequently admitted to the
United States with a fixed period of admission, the F-1 student will be
required to file both Form I-765 (or successor form) and an EOS
application, Form I-539 (or successor form) pursuant to 8 CFR
214.2(f)(11)(i)(B)(2) or (C). See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)(ii). Likewise,
for J-1 exchange visitors who are already present in the United States
under the D/S framework at the time that the rule takes effect, i.e.,
60 days after the date the final rule is published, they will be able
to stay until their program end date on the Form DS-2019 (but no more
than 4 years from the effective date), plus 30 days to depart or seek
new status. Id. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1).
In contrast, the implementation period is the 60-day period in
between the publication of the rule and the day the rule takes effect.
DHS recognizes the need for adjustment and is providing 60 days after
publication for affected parties to become acquainted with the new law.
After this implementation period, F, J, and I nonimmigrants will need
to be admitted under a fixed period of time, consistent with the new
rules. To assist with the transition and implementation, DHS will
provide training and guidance to DSOs and schools. DHS appreciates this
concern and all the changes that will have to be made to comply with
this rule.
DHS disagrees that it will take more than two months to prepare
stakeholders for the implementation of this rule. Again, the only
adjustment that will be necessary for stakeholders regarding the F and
J nonimmigrants already in the United States on D/S is to notate the
date 4 years out, when those who have not completed their programs
under the D/S system will need to apply for EOS. For those entering
after the effective date, they will receive I-94s with a date certain,
which reflects the I-20 date already in SEVIS (up to four years) plus
30 days for departure. See new 214.1(a)(4). The H-1B cap-gap provisions
are not changing due to this rulemaking; therefore, the H-1B cycle
should not be affected by this rule.
DHS recognizes that students, their families, and educational
institutions may have structured their academic, professional, and
personal plans based on the longstanding D/S policy. The Department
carefully considered these reliance interests during the rulemaking
process. In developing the final rule, DHS sought to minimize
disruption by including a transition period, mechanisms for extensions
of stay, and clear guidance for students and school officials. These
measures are intended to provide affected individuals and institutions
with sufficient time and flexibility to adjust to the new requirements.
I nonimmigrants will also have sufficient preparation time with the
60-day effective date in this rule and the transition provisions in new
8 CFR 214.1(m)(3). Any I nonimmigrants who are properly maintaining
their status on the date this rule takes effect and who were admitted
for D/S are authorized to remain in the United States in I nonimmigrant
status for a period necessary to complete their activity, not to exceed
either 90 or 240 days (with the shorter period for those I
nonimmigrants with a passport from the PRC (except for Hong Kong SAR
and Macau SAR passport holders)). See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(3). The 90- or
240-days period is not calculated until the rule takes effect. Id. If
an alien needs additional time, they may be able to stay in the United
States longer in I nonimmigrant status by filing an EOS with USCIS in
accordance with new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(2) and new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5).
2. Clarity and Guidance for Transition Cases
Comments: Commenters sought clarification for cases where a
student's Form I-20 is no longer valid on the effective date of the
rule, or where SEVIS records are terminated or pending updates. They
requested assurance that students are not deemed unlawfully present due
to technical or timing issues beyond their control. A commenter
requested clarification about how unlawful presence will be accrued for
aliens transitioning from D/S to a fixed period of stay.
Response: An F-1 student whose program or OPT has ended on the
effective date of the rule will have the remainder of their allowed
departure period to leave the United States, i.e., 60 days from the
program end date on their I-20. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m). Students
needing additional time will not be subject to the transition provision
but rather be subject to the new rule and must apply for an EOS. SEVP
will continue to process SEVIS corrections as needed. Students should
not remain in the United States with a terminated or completed SEVIS
record beyond their allowed departure period. Under this final rule,
aliens who remain in the United States beyond a fixed time period
generally will begin accruing unlawful presence. Calculation of accrual
of unlawful presence resulting from the elimination of D/S under this
rule will not be applied retroactively but for those with completed
programs and therefore expired I-20, unlawful presence will be begin to
accrue on the effective date of the rule unless they have applied for
reinstatement, a change or status, or an EAD for OPT or STEM OPT before
the effective date of the rule. In addition, this rule will not take
effect until September 15, 2026, it includes a transition period for
nonimmigrants who are currently on D/S, and it allows nonimmigrants to
remain lawfully in the United States while an EOS is pending. These
provisions will mitigate any issues which may arise related to
technical or timing issues beyond their control. Unlawful presence will
start to accrue for those on D/S when the nonimmigrant fails to comply
with the terms of their F, J, or I nonimmigrant category, or when they
fail to transition to admission under a fixed period of time within the
time allotted for in new 8 CFR 214.1(m).
[[Page 45018]]
3. Lack of Clarity and System Modifications
Comments: Commenters expressed confusion about the transition
period's impact on various student scenarios, status end dates, and the
interplay between SEVIS, I-94s, and USCIS systems. They requested clear
instructions, updated documents, and system improvements to track
status and avoid errors.
Response: DHS believes the transition provision is clear: students
in D/S status on the rule's effective date continue their programs,
only needing to apply for EOS if their program exceeds the program end
date on their DS-2019 or I-20, or 4 years after the effective date of
the rule, whichever comes first. This addresses various student
scenarios. For the EOS adjudication, SEVIS information is used by USCIS
officers as part of their adjudication process to determine
eligibility. Travel abroad during the transition period triggers
conversion to the fixed-date regime. Upon admission following their
travel, students will receive an I-94 with a fixed date. DHS is in the
process of completing updates to SEVIS to incorporate this new rule and
updates will include information about the end date from the Form I-94.
USCIS, CBP, DoS, and ICE have always had and will continue to have
access to necessary information from each other. DHS and DoS will
provide any necessary updated instructions, guidance, and training to
stakeholders, including DSOs and ROs, and will ensure technical updates
are completed prior to the effective date. DHS and DoS websites will be
updated as needed to inform F-1 and J-1 participants about how to
maneuver the new system.
4. Modifications to Transition Period
Comments: Commenters proposed additional support during the
transition, such as streamlined extensions, clear guidance, training,
funding for DSOs, and phased implementation. Suggestions included
robust grace periods, service standards, digital filings, reasonable
fees, and expedited lanes for academic deadlines. Some commenters
warned that too many exceptions increase confusion. Commenters also
recommended detailed implementation guidance, technical assistance, and
public education efforts. Similarly, a commenter wrote that the
proposed rule should include specific procedures for the transition
from D/S to fixed time period admission of authorized stay for F and J
nonimmigrants.
Response: DHS appreciates the suggestions but declines to make
further modifications to the rule based on these suggestions. Many are
already part of the transition period, such as current D/S holders
remaining in D/S until their program or OPT ends. This transition
period results in a phased implementation, since F, J, and I
nonimmigrants can transition to admission for a fixed period of time
over the course of the next four or so years. Additional grace periods
are also not being adopted due to this transition period and the
implementation period between the final rule's publication date and the
rule's effective date, which is 60 days. DHS maintains that the
transition provisions provide an appropriate mechanism for
transitioning D/S nonimmigrants to a fixed period of time. DHS and DoS
will provide guidance and training as needed, including training for
DSOs and ROs to ensure a smooth transition. DHS will continue to
evaluate its process for extensions and available technological
improvements and appreciates commenters' desires for continued
streamlining and digital filings. DHS also appreciates commenters'
desire for additional funding of DSOs, but this is outside the scope of
this rulemaking.
5. Transition Period for Specific Categories
a. F and J Nonimmigrants
Comments: Commenters stated that replacing D/S with fixed-date
rules, coupled with transition rules and new limits, creates traps for
diligent students and dependents, increases costs, and disrupts
academic and professional progress. They expressed concern about the
impact on family members and the risk of losing work authorization or
facing school disruptions.
Response: DHS recognizes the importance of minimizing disruption
and unintended consequences for diligent students and dependents but
disagrees with commenters that this new framework creates a ``trap''
for students and dependents. DHS also believes the final rule is not
unreasonably burdensome. Further, DHS has appropriately considered
costs. Most students will complete their programs per the terms of
their initial admission. For those in longer programs, mechanisms exist
for extension. While there are costs associated with this extension and
impacts to affected nonimmigrants, DHS believes the need to protect
program integrity and national security outweigh such costs and
impacts. The regulations allow EOS if additional time is needed to
complete a program of study, begin a new program of study, or following
the completion of studies to engage in post-completion OPT and STEM
OPT. Further, the regulations also allow for an EOS if the student has
a currently issued Form I-20, or successor form, indicating additional
time is left to complete the program of study, or if there is
documentation demonstrating the request for an extension is for
compelling academic reasons, documented illness or medical condition,
or circumstances beyond the student's control. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(i). This framework mitigates disruptions to students and
families.
DHS acknowledges that this new process will require F, J, and I
nonimmigrants to be much more mindful of their status and to keep track
of when they need to file for EOS and EADs in order to avoid any
disruptions and inadvertent violations. However, most other
nonimmigrants must currently do the same; therefore, DHS does not
believe that this is an unreasonable requirement. As stated, numerous
times throughout this preamble, DSOs and ROs will be provided training
to help F and J nonimmigrants not miss any deadlines; SEVIS is being
updated to prompt DSOs and ROs when needed; therefore, DHS believes
that it is taking sufficient steps to mitigate any possible issues that
transitioning to a fixed time period might cause.
b. I Nonimmigrants
Comments: Commenters stated that current I nonimmigrants should not
be subject to a fixed period of stay and recommended longer initial
admission periods, multiple extensions, and premium processing. They
also requested that dependents receive the same terms as principals.
Response: DHS recognizes the operational realities of foreign media
assignments and the need for flexibility. However, the D/S framework
allows I visa to be abused by bad actors to stay in the country for
extended periods of time. Therefore, a fixed admission period is being
implemented so that immigration officers can periodically check the
veracity of the I visa holder's need to stay in the United States. The
transition period and EOS mechanisms are designed to balance oversight
with minimizing administrative burdens. DHS acknowledges a desire by
some commenters for longer initial admission periods but declines to
extend the admission period since the vast majority of I nonimmigrants
stay for less than 240 days, and EOS's are available for
[[Page 45019]]
those who require additional time.\163\ DHS recognizes commenters'
request for multiple extensions for I nonimmigrants, and the rule does
allow for multiple extension requests to be filed. Further, DHS
recognizes commenters' request for dependents of I nonimmigrants to
receive the same term as principles. Under this rule, dependents will
generally receive the same terms of admission as the principal I
nonimmigrant, subject to applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements, such as age-out provisions for minor dependents. DHS
remains committed to supporting I nonimmigrants and their dependents
while maintaining program integrity. DHS points the reader to sec.
IV.G.2.a below for a discussion about premium processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ DHS data shows that 94.6 percent of I nonimmigrants with
confirmed exit data stay less than 240 days. Based on DHS's analysis
of ADIS data identifying length of stay of I-visa holders between
2015 and 2024, valid as of March 21, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Not Applicable to Aliens Outside the United States or Present in
Violation of Status
Comments: Commenters questioned how the rule applies to those who
fell out of status before the effective date and whether retroactive
application would create disproportionate penalties.
Response: Nonimmigrants who fell out of status before the effective
date are not eligible for the transition provisions and must seek
reinstatement or depart the United States. Those maintaining status on
the effective date are subject to the transition provisions and will
accrue unlawful presence if they overstay the new fixed period. The
rules for accrual of unlawful presence are consistent with existing DoS
guidance. Importantly, this rule is not retroactive and does not impose
new or additional penalties for violations that occurred prior to the
effective date. Only those maintaining status on the effective date are
subject to the transition provisions and will begin to accrue unlawful
presence if they overstay the new fixed period.
6. Implementation and Transition
Comments: Several commenters requested additional details on the
transition process, stakeholder training, and system updates necessary
for successful implementation of the new rule. A commenter stated that
more time is needed to address operational challenges and questions
from agencies and institutions. The commenter remarked that a delay
would allow for meaningful stakeholder engagement, policy refinement,
and a smoother transition for impacted parties. Another commenter
stated that large-scale communication efforts are required among
students to receive guidance and information about changes to their
original entry agreements; DSOs, AROs, and institutional staff to
support compliance; and community members, including immigration
attorneys, educational consultants, employers, and community members. A
commenter requested the final rule be accompanied by detailed
implementation guidance and thorough technical assistance for sponsors,
host institutions, and exchange visitors. Another commenter requested
that any changes in U.S. policy be clearly communicated in advance to
partner governments and impacted nonimmigrants. The commenter further
stated that this change would allow for timely compliance with new
regulations. Furthermore, one commenter stated that Form I-539 and
instructions for extensions and status change would need to be
developed, tested, and implemented.
Response: DHS is committed to providing clear guidance and training
to all stakeholders, including DSOs, ROs, CBP officers, and affected
nonimmigrants. System updates to SEVIS, CBP, and USCIS platforms are
underway to support the transition from D/S to fixed admission periods.
DHS will issue detailed implementation guidance and conduct outreach to
ensure a smooth transition and minimize disruption for students,
exchange visitors, institutions, and government personnel. DHS will
also make training available to DSOs so that they and the foreign
students they advise will be ready for the transition.
DHS maintains that the transition provisions in the new 8 CFR
214.1(m) provide sufficient time for the rule's changes and that
delaying the rule is not necessary. DHS believes that the rule
appropriately affords due process protections to nonimmigrants,
including those already present in the United States on F, J, or I
nonimmigrant visas. Complying individuals will be allowed to remain in
the United States for the immediate future and will have the
opportunity during the transition period to obtain permission to extend
their current status under a fixed period of stay. Doing so ensures
uniformity in the conditions placed on nonimmigrants while still
protecting their legitimate interests in their reasons for coming to
the United States.
Regarding Form I-539, DHS notes that this form is currently used by
USCIS to determine if a nonimmigrant alien of the appropriate status
who seeks to extend his or her stay beyond the currently authorized
period of admission meets the criteria necessary for USCIS to grant an
EOS or change to another nonimmigrant status. This final rule does not
create a new form for requesting an EOS or change of nonimmigrant
status. Instead, DHS is updating existing Form I-539, to allow F, J,
and I nonimmigrants to apply for an EOS or change of status (COS) with
USCIS.
Comments: A commenter recommended that DHS and USCIS clarify how
they plan to answer questions from DSOs and ROs about implementation
and practice of the proposed rule, since the USCIS Ombudsman Office has
been suspended by DHS.
Response: DHS is committed to providing training and guidance to
DSOs and ROs as the rule is being implemented. Resources and updates
will be available on SEVP's website at https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/ for DSOs, F nonimmigrants and schools, and on
DoS website (https://j1visa.state.gov/programs) for ROs, J
nonimmigrants, and program sponsors.
For general questions about the implementation and practice of the
proposed rule:
DSOs may contact their local field representative, or the
SEVP Response Center via email at [email protected].
ROs may contact the DoS at [email protected].
For questions related to F and J benefit applications, including
the Form I-765 or the Form I-539, DSOs and ROs should visit USCIS
Contact Center (https://www.uscis.gov/contactcenter) or email
[email protected] for Form I-765 inquiries.
For questions regarding admission to the United States or Form I-94
issuance, please visit https://www.cbp.gov/.
DHS will continue to update these resources and provide additional
guidance as needed to ensure DSOs and ROs have the support necessary
during the implementation process.
G. EOS
1. EOS Regulations, Process, and Requirements
a. Concerns About Potential Drafting Error or Unjustified Change to
Form I-129 Deference Policy
Comments: Commenters noted that the proposed technical amendment to
section.214.1(c)(5) was not merely technical, as described in the
preamble, but would represent a substantive shift that would increase
burdens, reduce adjudicatory efficiency, and introduce inconsistency.
Commenters stated that
[[Page 45020]]
striking all references to Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant
Worker, and Form I-539, Application to Change/Extend Nonimmigrant
Status from 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5) would result in the repeal of the current
regulatory mandate for USCIS adjudicators to give deference to prior
agency determinations involving the same employer and employee when
there are no material factual changes. They reasoned this would
increase financial and administrative burdens, narrow flexibility,
create risks of inconsistent adjudications, and result in unnecessary
re-adjudication of petitions. Some commenters also argued this change
was outside the scope of the rule and not relevant to F, J, or I
regulations.
Commenters further stated that the proposed change could be
arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
lacking reasoned explanation or adequate opportunity for public
comment. Some believed the change was likely a drafting error, as the
deference issue was not discussed in the preamble and the NPRM may have
referenced an outdated version of the regulation.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' concerns and notes that
the NPRM mistakenly cited 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5) instead of 8 CFR
241.1(c)(7). DHS now recognizes that a 2024 rulemaking had in fact
renumbered the provision on decisions for EOS applications as 8 CFR
214.1(c)(7) and had further made technical revisions to the provision,
including removal of the specific form numbers.\164\ Accordingly, the
revisions proposed in the NPRM related to 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5) are no
longer needed and will not be finalized in this rule. As such, DHS will
not address substantive comments about the impact of the elimination of
deference as those are outside of the scope of what DHS intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ See Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility
in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other
Nonimmigrant Workers, 89 FR 103054 (Dec. 18, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. General Feedback on the Requirement To File an EOS
Comments: Commenters stated that the proposed rule would increase
administrative burden, uncertainty, and inefficiency. The shift to a
fixed-term admission would require hundreds of thousands of
nonimmigrants, particularly those in longer programs or pursuing OPT,
to apply for EOS. Commenters noted that this could disrupt research,
dissertations, teaching assistantships, and funding cycles; waste
resources; and create duplicative review processes, especially since
schools and SEVIS already monitor compliance. Concerns were raised
about the risk of denials due to technical errors or AI-based
adjudication. Some commenters said that each additional filing
increases the risk of record mismatches or clerical errors, and that
incomplete or misfiled forms would become more difficult to address in
a system involving multiple agencies and forms. Commenters also cited
significant economic contributions of foreign students and warned that
the rule could reduce U.S. competitiveness and university revenues.
Response: DHS does not believe that establishing a fixed time
period of authorized stay places undue burdens on F, J, and I
nonimmigrants. F-1 students may apply for an EOS if they require
additional time under their F-1 status, and the rulemaking includes a
transition period for students currently on D/S, allowing for an
orderly transition. Providing a fixed time period of authorized stay
that requires application for extension, change of status, or other
authorization is consistent with most other nonimmigrant
classifications and with practices prior to 1979. While DHS
acknowledges that this rule will impose additional burdens on some
populations, the benefit to program integrity and national security
outweighs the burdens.
Requiring F, J, and I nonimmigrants to request additional periods
of admission directly with DHS will improve consistency, enable
stronger oversight, and deter fraud and abuse. DHS acknowledges the
economic contribution of foreign students and expects the United States
to remain a competitive destination. The rule's potential impact on
enrollment is discussed qualitatively in the economic analysis portion
of this rule due to the speculative nature of the magnitude of any
decrease.
DHS also appreciates commenters' concerns regarding the potential
for technical errors and the use of automated or AI-based adjudication
in the processing of immigration benefits under this rule. Requests for
admission, extensions of stay, changes of status, and employment
authorizations will continue to be adjudicated by trained DHS officers
who apply statutory and regulatory requirements to the facts of each
case. DHS is also conducting updates to SEVIS and updates to training
to ensure a smooth transition and to minimize the risk of any technical
errors. Further, USCIS, which is fee-funded, will continue to monitor
its resource allocations and make adjustments as appropriate. DHS is
committed to ensuring the integrity and fairness of the adjudication
process and will continue to ensure appropriate safeguards are in
place.
c. Impacts to the Immigration System or DHS
(1) Efficiency Concerns, Duplicative Processes, Backlogs, Delays, and
USCIS Staffing
Comments: Commenters stated that the proposed rule would create
duplicative processes within the immigration system, noting that
nonimmigrants are already highly tracked and regulated. They argued the
rule would create inefficiencies, confusion, costs, or risks, without
demonstrating that D/S has failed or that the proposed rule would have
beneficial outcomes. Some commenters said the rule would overwhelm
USCIS with additional applications, exacerbating existing processing
delays, and create a fragmented system with multiple agencies
controlling separate parts of the process (DoS, CBP, DHS, USCIS). Many
challenged DHS's estimate of 414,000 additional EOS applications
annually, suggesting it was too low, and projected even higher numbers.
Commenters also noted that DSOs would vet EOS applications before
recommending an extension to DHS, resulting in duplicative review, and
that the rule would force foreign students to navigate dual
bureaucracies.
Commenters expressed concern that delays in processing EOS
applications could have serious consequences for students and academic
programs, including disruptions to research projects, teaching
assignments, and clinical training. Doctoral programs and certain
undergraduate programs that exceed four years would require at least
one EOS application, creating uncertainty for students and
institutions. Medical education and training pathways, which extend
beyond four years, could also be negatively affected. Commenters
expressed concerns that backlogs and delays in EOS applications would
leave students and exchange visitors uncertain about their ability to
remain in the country and continue their education, potentially
disrupting enrollment, employment, stipends, and health insurance. They
noted that such uncertainty could prompt status inquiries that would
further exacerbate backlogs and could also impact hospitals and patient
care. Commenters warned that delays would disrupt operations for
students, institutions, businesses, embassies, and ports of
[[Page 45021]]
entry. Commenters noted spillover effects on other immigration benefits
due to increased workload and cited research showing that processing
delays could lead to job losses and reduced hiring. Commenters
suggested setting a maximum adjudication timeline (e.g., 90 days) and
reducing filing fees to minimize harm.
Response: The need for this rulemaking was discussed at length in
the NPRM and is reiterated within this final rule. Fixed admission
periods and periodic review will enhance compliance, reduce overstays,
and improve national security and these benefits outweigh the effects.
While the rule may cause an increase in USCIS processing times, DHS
believes that the benefits of increased contact with these
nonimmigrants outweigh processing time considerations. Requiring F, J,
and I nonimmigrants to request an EOS will improve consistency of terms
of admissions between nonimmigrant categories, enable stronger
oversight by government officers who will review the nonimmigrant's
request and assess compliance, and enhance the government's ability to
enforce inadmissibility grounds related to unlawful presence.
DHS appreciates feedback on the estimated volume of additional EOS
applications. DHS's estimates are modelled from historical data
obtained from the SEVIS and ADIS systems, and the model has been
updated with the most recent data sets. DHS will continue to evaluate
actual application volumes and adjust resources and processes as
necessary. USCIS, as a fee-funded agency, may set fees to support the
additional workload and conduct comprehensive fee studies on a biennial
basis, mitigating concerns about a spillover effect. USCIS will
continue to monitor its resource allocations and make adjustments as
appropriate. DHS also concludes that DSOs and ROs should no longer
serve as direct proxies for immigration officers, though they will
continue to perform important duties to assist DHS and nonimmigrant
students. For example, commenters incorrectly assess that the work of
the DSOs and ROs will be duplicative of that of USCIS or CBP. Quite on
the contrary, it will be the DSOs and ROs who will decide if the
program should be extended on academic or programmatic grounds. USCIS
will determine if the nonimmigrant properly maintained status, has not
abused the system, and is, therefore, eligible for an EOS. DHS
understands that some programs of study may require additional time.
The rule permits F, J, and I nonimmigrants who wish to remain in the
United States beyond their specific authorized admission period to
apply for authorization to extend their stay. Timely filed EOS
applications allow students to remain in a period of authorized stay
while pending, and automatic extension provisions help mitigate
potential disruptions.
DHS appreciates the input regarding academic programs and
employment opportunities that may be impacted and does not believe it
is unreasonable to require aliens temporarily in the United States to
file for an extension with USCIS to confirm compliance with U.S.
immigration laws. Provisions in the rule allow F-1 and J-1
nonimmigrants to continue their activities while EOS applications are
pending, helping to prevent interruptions.
DHS recognizes concerns about potential duplicative review and the
need for students to interact with multiple agencies. While DSOs and
ROs continue to play a critical role in advising and supporting
students, the rule is designed to ensure that final immigration status
determinations are made by DHS officers, consistent with statutory
requirements. DHS will work to provide clear guidance to minimize
confusion and administrative burden.
DHS understands the importance of timely processing and strives to
adjudicate applications as efficiently as possible. However, processing
times can be affected by a variety of factors, including security
vetting requirements, and the need for thorough review to ensure
program integrity. That is why nonimmigrants are always encouraged and
will continue to be encouraged to apply well in advance of the
expiration of their stay so that their EOS can be timely adjudicated
and not cause any disruption to their programs.
(2) Program Sponsor Access and SEVIS Updates
Comments: A commenter expressed concern that program sponsors do
not have access to EOS application status, and that this information is
not entered evenly or immediately into SEVIS by DHS officials. The
commenter warned that the proposed rule would create situations in
which program sponsors could not effectively monitor and advise
exchange visitors since they would be unaware of the timeline for EOS
processing.
Response: DHS appreciates the concern. SEVIS is being modernized to
show sponsors the status of EOS applications, thereby alleviating these
concerns.
d. Impacts to Nonimmigrants, Students, or Their Support Systems
(1) Logistical Burdens of Application Process
Comments: Commenters expressed significant concerns about the
administrative and logistical burdens and processing delays associated
with the proposed EOS application process for F, J, and I
nonimmigrants. Commenters emphasized that requiring Form I-539 filed
with USCIS would create substantial administrative burdens for
students, given USCIS's significant backlogs and lengthy processing
times. The process would transform what is currently a routine
administrative update handled by university DSOs into a formal, costly,
and time-consuming adjudication process. Commenters also noted concerns
about timing challenges, especially with peak filing periods, and the
burden of traveling to USCIS field offices or consulates for required
steps.
Response: DHS does not believe that establishing a fixed time
period of authorized stay places an undue burden on F, J, and I
nonimmigrants. While the rule will impose additional burden on some
populations, the benefit to program integrity outweighs the burden. The
rule provides that F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants can continue their studies
or program activities while properly filed EOS applications are
pending, subject to certain conditions and time limits. These
allowances help to minimize disruptions. Further, as noted above, USCIS
(which is a fee-funded agency) will continue to monitor its resource
allocations and make adjustments as appropriate.
(2) Risk of Status Violations Due to Processing Delays
Comments: Many commenters noted concern that processing delays or a
denied extension could lead to students falling out of status through
no fault of their own, potentially accruing unlawful presence and
triggering reentry bars.
Response: DHS disagrees that this rule will increase students
falling out of status through no fault of their own, potentially
accruing unlawful presence and triggering reentry bars. For timely
filed EOS applications, the F, J, or I nonimmigrant is considered to be
in a period of authorized stay and does not accrue unlawful presence
during adjudication of their EOS. If an EOS application is denied after
the period of admission has expired, the nonimmigrant student and any
dependents must depart immediately. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(vii). DHS
also notes that reentry bars are not triggered
[[Page 45022]]
until an alien departs the United States. One primary aim of this final
rule is to institute policies that encourage aliens to maintain lawful
status and reduce instances of unlawful presence. USCIS will assess
allocation of resources as appropriate to address processing needs.
(3) Negative Impacts on Academic Flexibility and Educational Pathways
Comments: Commenters noted concerns that the proposed rule would
limit students' academic flexibility, making routine academic
adjustments immigration adjudication events. They provided examples of
combined degree programs, transitions from master's to doctoral
studies, and other pathways that would be complicated by the rule.
Commenters criticized the rule for shifting supervision of academic
decisions from institutions to USCIS and warned it could decrease the
incentive for foreign students to study in the United States.
Response: DHS recognizes the concerns about reduced academic
flexibility. Students may be admitted for up to four years and may
apply for an extension if their program requires additional time. The
regulation outlines the parameters for study, but students may make
academic decisions within those parameters and continue to seek
guidance from educational institutions, helping to protect the
integrity of the F nonimmigrant classification while also preventing
fraud and abuse. Furthermore, only DHS has authority to determine
whether a nonimmigrant student remains in status. DHS believes, as
discussed elsewhere in this rule, that nonimmigrant students will
continue to come to the United States to study because of the quality
of education offered and the ability to gain work experience in
specialized fields.
(4) Financial Burdens
Comments: Commenters expressed significant concern about the
financial burdens the proposed rule would impose on F, J, and I
nonimmigrants, including increased fees for EOS applications and
potential legal fees. Commenters noted that these costs would be
particularly burdensome for students with limited financial resources
and could accumulate over multiple extensions. Additional expenses
could include travel costs for biometrics or interviews and indirect
costs such as loss of income or health insurance due to pending EOS
applications.
Response: DHS is authorized to charge fees for adjudication and
naturalization services at a level to ensure recovery of the full costs
of providing such services. DHS acknowledges that EOS applications will
incur costs for nonimmigrants, but these costs are necessary for
program integrity and national security. The Regulatory Impact Analysis
accounts for these costs, and DHS believes the benefits outweigh the
financial burden.
(5) Driver's Licenses
Comments: Commenters expressed concern about obtaining a driver's
license and warned that the proposed rule would create additional
complexities with respect to driver's licenses, as many states issue
licenses only for the period of stay specified on a nonimmigrant's Form
I-94. Affected nonimmigrants and their dependents would need to seek
license renewal each time they file an EOS, adding further cost and
inconvenience.
Response: DHS recognizes various state laws related to driver's
licenses for aliens but does not have authority to adjust these state
laws. DHS believes that timely filing of extension requests will
minimize potential delays in license renewals.
(6) Emotional Burden
Comments: Many commenters described the stress, psychological
impacts, and uncertainty F, J, and I nonimmigrants would face from
dealing with the complexity of the extension process under the proposed
rule. Commenters noted, for F nonimmigrants, this was especially true
after investing significant resources in their education.
Response: DHS acknowledges that regulatory changes require
adjustment and can be difficult. However, DHS believes the benefits of
the rule outweigh these effects and that F, J, and I nonimmigrants will
adapt to these changes. DHS declines to adjust the regulations for this
reason.
(7) Economic Hardship and Special Student Relief (SSR)
Comments: A commenter supported codifying automatic extension of
employment authorization for SSR beneficiaries with timely EOS
applications, noting it aligns with longstanding policy and reduces
lapses in employment. Others requested clarification on how automatic
extension applies to severe economic hardship and raised concerns about
increased administrative burdens.
Response: DHS appreciates the support and clarifies that
individuals with a timely filed, pending EOS may receive automatic
extensions of employment authorization under certain circumstances for
up to 240 days or until the end date stated in a Federal Register
notice. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii). The 240-day period is
consistent with other nonimmigrant classifications and balances the
need for oversight with minimizing disruptions. DHS acknowledges
additional costs but believes the benefits outweigh the burdens.
(8) Interaction With H-1B Status (Cap-Gap Protection)
Comments: Commenters expressed concern that the rule could
undermine cap-gap protection for F-1 students transitioning to H-1B
status, potentially causing legal consequences for brief lapses in
status. They requested clarification on whether cap-gap protections
would remain and how the rule interacts with existing provisions for H-
1B portability and status bridging.
Response: DHS confirms that the rule does not modify or remove
automatic EOS and employment authorization for F-1 students who are
beneficiaries of timely filed H-1B cap-subject petitions. Eligible F-1
students will continue to be granted automatic EOS and employment
authorization through April 1 of the relevant fiscal year or until the
H-1B petition's validity start date, whichever is earlier.
(9) Impact on OPT and Employment
Comments: Many commenters expressed concern that delays in
processing EOS applications could disrupt work authorization for
students and employers, resulting in lost income, interruptions to
employer operations, and jeopardized research projects or clinical
care. Commenters stated that the OPT/STEM OPT pipelines supply critical
U.S. industries and that the proposed rule would introduce uncertainty
and additional complexity, particularly for unpaid or volunteer OPT
work. Some commenters provided data on the number of OPT authorizations
and warned that the rule could deter participation in OPT and reduce
the U.S. technical workforce.
Response: DHS understands concerns regarding potential disruptions
to employment and research due to EOS processing. To minimize
disruptions, the final rule includes provisions for automatic
extensions of the authorized period of stay and employment
authorizations for F-1, J, and I nonimmigrants who timely file EOS
applications.\165\ These provisions help minimize interruptions in
activities and employment while applications are pending. DHS
recognizes commenters'
[[Page 45023]]
concerns about the effects of this rule on OPT and STEM OPT. DHS has
sought to balance program integrity, national security, and compliance
with the need to minimize disruptions to students and the U.S.
workforce. OPT and STEM OPT participants are included in the transition
period outlined in this rule, reducing immediate burdens and allowing
time for adjustment to the new process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii), (j)(1)(vii),
(i)(5)(i)(B), (iii), and 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Feedback, Recommendations, and Requests for Clarification
a. Premium Processing
Comments: Commenters suggested offering premium processing for Form
I-539.
Response: USCIS will continue to explore expanding premium
processing for Form I-539 for affected populations requesting an EOS.
USCIS will alert the public through the USCIS website that governs
premium offerings.\166\ In the absence of premium processing, an
applicant may request that USCIS expedite the adjudication of an
application, including for an EOS, that is under USCIS
jurisdiction.\167\ USCIS considers all expedite requests on a case-by-
case basis and generally requires documentation to support such
requests.\168\ The decision to expedite is within the sole discretion
of USCIS.\169\ Expediting a case generally means that USCIS would
adjudicate a benefit ahead of others, including those who may have
filed earlier, so USCIS carefully weighs the urgency and merit of each
expedite request.\170\ DHS has built in protections for students with
timely filed EOS applications, including periods of authorized stay and
automatic extension of employment authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ See USCIS, How Do I Request Premium Processing? (last
updated June 18, 2024), https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/how-do-i-request-premium-processing.
\167\ See USCIS, Expedite Requests (last updated Oct. 30, 2025),
https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expedite-requests.
\168\ See Id.
\169\ See Id.
\170\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. EOS Process Recommendations and Clarifications
Comments: Commenters recommended modifications to the EOS process,
such as limiting the number and length of extensions per degree level,
allowing program-based extensions for healthcare workers, eliminating
EOS for students maintaining valid enrollment or for students making
institutional transfers or program changes at the same level, and
allowing visa stamp delivery with EOS approval. Commenters also
requested clarification on the roles of DSOs/AROs, and the
documentation required for EOS.
Response: DHS thanks the commenters for their suggestions; however,
DHS is concerned that perhaps there is a misunderstanding of when there
is a need to file for an EOS. Many degrees, except for some Ph.D.
programs, can be completed within the 4-year maximum period of stay.
Therefore, most F-1 students, who are in Masters and Bachelor's
programs, are not expected to need an EOS unless they wish to progress
to higher levels of education. Their period of admission will be
limited in length based upon their program duration, not to exceed the
4-year maximum period of stay. Healthcare workers are also able to file
for extensions should their J nonimmigrant activities extend beyond
their admission period, which can initially be up to 4 years. However,
that said, this rule does not require students or exchange visitors to
complete their intended program within four years. Rather, the four-
year period serves as a law enforcement and screening tool to assess
whether a student or exchange visitor is maintaining their nonimmigrant
status. Therefore, DHS appreciates commenters recommendations to limit
the number of extensions, but declines to adopt this limitation, as DHS
will review the eligibility of each EOS application and the rule
changes being adopted via this final rule will help to prevent fraud
and abuse. DHS will not be eliminating EOS for select groups, as this
would undermine the goals of this rulemaking.
DHS appreciates the suggestion to allow visa stamp delivery with
EOS approval. However, under current law, DHS does not have this
authority since visa stamps can only be issued by DoS.
Finally, DHS appreciates the requests for clarification about the
roles of DSOs and AROs and the documentation required for EOS. These
roles and the necessary documentation have been described in this
rulemaking and DHS will continue to provide guidance and training as
deemed necessary.
c. Safe Harbor Provisions and Appeals
Comments: Commenters recommended that DHS establish ``safe harbor''
protections for students whose extension applications are pending when
their status expires due to processing delays. For example, a commenter
stated if the denial notice is mailed via United States Postal Service
and the student is not notified of the denial in any other way, it
would take approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) days for the denial
notice to reach them (given current mailing times of other USCIS
notices). The commenter was concerned the student could be accruing
days of overstay and not even know it and advised providing a grace
period for departure would alleviate this concern.
Suggestions included specific timeframes for these protections,
ranging from 180 days to 12-18 months of lawful status while awaiting
USCIS decisions. Commenters emphasized that these protections would
prevent workforce and academic disruptions. Additionally, commenters
requested clarification regarding the appeals process for EOS denials,
specifically asking what activities students would be permitted to
engage in, such as class enrollment, while appeals or motions are
pending.
Response: DHS has built in protections for students who have a
timely filed EOS application because the nonimmigrant is considered to
be in a period of authorized stay and does not accrue unlawful presence
during this time. As has been discussed in this final rule, activities
consistent with the classification, as well as certain work
authorizations, may also continue after the filing of an EOS, with some
restrictions which have been discussed within this final rule. Notably,
F-1 students who timely file an EOS application before their period of
admission expires are considered to be in a period of authorized stay
while the application is pending and they may continue their studies
during this time. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iii)(B). Given the current
protections in place, DHS declines to adopt further ``safe harbor''
protections.
This rule does not alter the unavailability of appeals for denials
of Form I-539, as these applications currently cannot be appealed;
however, a motion to reopen or reconsider may be filed if the
application is denied. USCIS issues denial notices with specific
reasons for the denial, as required under 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(i), with
the exception of classified information. As with all other nonimmigrant
statuses that are denied an EOS, filing a motion does not stay the
execution of any decision or extend a previously set departure date.
DHS recognizes commenters' concerns about accrual of unlawful status
while awaiting receipt of their denial and the inability to work during
this time. This is something that can happen in many visa categories
and aliens can consult with immigration professionals to understand the
requirements of their visa category and the risks of not following
those requirements. Because this concept is already embedded in the
[[Page 45024]]
current regulations, this rule does not affect this provision in the
CFR.
d. Suggestions for Streamlining and Modifying the EOS Process
Comments: Several commenters advocated for automatic extension
mechanisms that would allow students to continue their programs as long
as they maintain status, emphasizing the need to avoid mid-program
disruptions. Commenters also recommended streamlining extensions for
low-risk students, exempting certain categories from EOS requirements,
and prioritizing applications involving research or clinical care.
Response: DHS recently updated its regulations to expressly require
that evidence of maintenance of status must be included with petitions
or applications seeking an extension or amendment of stay. See 8 CFR
214.1(c)(6). This requirement streamlines and clarifies the process for
EOS requests and helps ensure compliance. DHS believes that USCIS
review of extensions is necessary for program integrity and national
security, and that the benefits of this oversight outweigh the
administrative burden. DHS declines to lower the review threshold for
certain categories of F, J, and I nonimmigrants since this would
undercut the goals of this rulemaking.
e. Requests for Clarification and Predictability
Comments: Commenters requested clarification on numerous aspects of
the proposed rule, including when EOS filings would be necessary versus
simple SEVIS system updates, especially for early program changes.
Commenters also asked for clear, fair, and predictable extension
criteria, logistics, processing timelines, costs, and expectations.
They recommended that DHS publish service-level targets for EOS
processing and automatically approve interim extensions for pending
applications when these targets are not met. Commenters also sought
clarification on the number of EOS applications allowed in a lifetime,
allowable delays, hardship exceptions, and how OPT/STEM OPT extensions
would be managed under the new process.
Response: Under this rule, an EOS application is required when a
nonimmigrant's authorized period of admission will not be sufficient to
complete their program, training, or activity, or when additional time
in the United States is needed beyond the nonimmigrant's current fixed
admission period. An EOS may also be required for nonimmigrants
transitioning from D/S to a fixed admission period, as described within
the transition provisions in new 8 CFR 214.1(m). A system update in
SEVIS is required for certain routine changes but does not substitute
for an EOS when more time in status is needed.
DHS did not propose changes to 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4), the regulation
governing timely filing and maintenance of status. An alien seeking an
EOS must have continually maintained status, and late filings may be
excused at USCIS discretion if certain factors are met. DHS will
continue to provide guidance and training to clarify EOS requirements,
allowable delays, and the process for OPT/STEM OPT extensions. DHS
notes that if the F, J, and I nonimmigrant submits an EOS prior to the
expiration of the I-94, which includes the 30-day grace period, the
extension request will be considered timely filed. There are currently
no lifetime limits on the number of EOS applications that can be filed
for F, J, and I nonimmigrants.
f. Concerns About OPT Participation and EOS Requirements
Comments: Commenters recommended that DHS ensure OPT participation
is not disrupted by EOS requirements, with some stating that EOS should
not be required for OPT at all. They requested clarification on whether
students could apply for OPT after completing a degree without first
obtaining an EOS, and whether OPT would continue while an EOS
application is pending. One commenter wrote that CBP already admits
students to the date of EAD expiration or a DSO-endorsed OPT end date,
arguing that this renders a second EOS adjudication unnecessary.
Response: DHS appreciates commenters' concerns about potential
complications with filing for EOS along with work authorization.
Students have always been encouraged, and will continue to be
encouraged, to apply for their EAD for OPT as soon as possible and not
wait until they complete all their studies. Under the new rule, for
those students not under the transition provisions of 8 CFR 214.1(m),
they will also need to extend their stay. They can do so by filing both
an EOS and EAD concurrently. But, even if they file them separately,
when USCIS receives an EOS or work authorization application, an
immigration officer searches DHS systems to locate related files. This
process will not change once this final rule goes into effect. If USCIS
receives an extension request, USCIS will conduct searches to determine
if a related application, such as an application for employment
authorization, has been filed. If a related file is found, both cases
will be adjudicated together to avoid gaps in authorization. Currently,
students cannot begin employment until they receive an EAD from USCIS.
This will not change under this rule.
DHS has ensured efficient processing for EOS applications to avoid
any impact on the processing of the EAD petition related to OPT.
Students who complete their OPT during their program of study will not
need an EOS. Those opting for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT will most
likely need to file for an EOS with USCIS unless they travel abroad and
apply for readmission with a Form I-20 containing the DSO OPT
recommendation. Nonimmigrants can choose how to extend their stay by
either traveling abroad and re-entering through a POE or applying for
EOS with USCIS. It is not necessary to do both.
For those finishing a program of study and wanting to start OPT or
STEM OPT and their authorized stay expires when their program of study
concludes, they can file both an EOS (I-539) and EAD (I-765)
application concurrently. They will be considered to be in a period of
authorized stay while the EOS application is pending but may not start
new employment until both EAD and EOS are approved. DHS has also
provided transition provisions to minimize disruption for students in
OPT/STEM OPT status at the time the rule takes effect.
With respect to whether OPT continues while an EOS application is
pending, the rule does not provide for automatic extension of post-
completion OPT employment authorization during the pendency of an EOS
application. However, for those participating in STEM OPT, the current
regulations at 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(6)(iv) are not changing and provide
that those with pending STEM OPT EAD applications can continue to work
up to 180 days after the expiration of their current EAD. Students may
begin or continue OPT employment only after both the EOS and employment
authorization applications are approved, unless they qualify for
transition relief or unless the F-1 students began their OPT as pre-
completion OPT and still have time left after completion of their
program.
g. Travel, Reentry, and EOS Applications
Comments: Commenters sought clarification on travel implications,
asking whether F and J nonimmigrants could exit the United States and
reenter under the same status as an alternative to the EOS process.
They also asked whether students would be required to
[[Page 45025]]
remain in the country while their EOS applications were pending and
urged DHS to allow extensions from within the United States rather than
requiring visa holders to exit.
Response: DHS has opted to provide flexibility by allowing F and J
nonimmigrants to either file for an EOS or depart and reenter the
United States to extend their stay. Each option has advantages and
disadvantages, and the decision is up to the individual. If the
nonimmigrant unexpectedly travels after filing an EOS application, DHS
recommends that nonimmigrants carry their EOS receipt notice when
traveling and notes that departing and reentering may result in
abandonment of a pending EOS application if admitted on a new Form I-20
or DS-2019 after the previous admission has expired. See new 8 CFR
214.1(c)(8).
h. 240-Day Grace Period and Family Unit Extensions
Comments: Commenters expressed concern with the proposed 240-day
grace period while an EOS remains pending, asking DHS to clarify how
this timeframe was determined. They also remarked on the provision that
``the shortest period granted to any member of the family will be
granted to all members,'' expressing concern that this could be unfair
if dependents age out before the normal end of stay.
Response: DHS based the 240-day period on the established timeframe
in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), which provides an automatic extension of
employment authorization for several nonimmigrant classifications. The
finalized regulation requires that extensions granted to family members
be for the same period, which promotes efficiency and oversight. DHS
often aligns the extension period for dependents (family members) with
that of the principal nonimmigrant. This is intended to promote
administrative efficiency and oversight.
Generally, USCIS will grant the maximum period of stay authorized
for the principal nonimmigrant and all dependents; however, there may
be situations (i.e., a child will age out) where one family member's
time limitation is less than the principal's. However, the reverse is
not true. DHS notes that under new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i)(E), the
authorized period of stay for F-2 dependents may not exceed the
authorized period of stay of the principal F-1 student.
i. Opposition to Extensions and Successive EOS Applications
Comments: Some commenters opposed extensions altogether, suggesting
that DHS pause all student and visitor visas or not allow nonimmigrants
to pursue EOS after graduating. Others expressed concern that students
might request successive EOSs, potentially allowing them to remain in
the United States much longer than the initial admission period.
Response: DHS requires that evidence of maintenance of status be
included with EOS applications and will review each request to ensure
compliance. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7). Successive EOS applications are
subject to eligibility requirements, and USCIS may deny requests if the
applicant does not meet the criteria. The process is designed to
prevent indefinite stays and ensure that nonimmigrants remain bona fide
students or exchange visitors.
3. EOS Process and Requirements for F-1 Students
a. General Concerns About EOS Requirements for F-1 Students
Comments: Many commenters expressed concerns that the proposed EOS
requirements for F-1 students would increase burdens on nonimmigrants,
government agencies, employers, educational institutions, and DSOs.
They argued that the procedures are duplicative and unnecessary, could
disrupt or delay academic progress, employment or training
opportunities (including OPT and H-1B), research, housing, and family
unity, and do not align with standard academic timelines. Commenters
cited studies showing that bachelor's and doctoral programs often
require more than four years. Commenters also indicated that associate
degree programs could take longer than 2 years due to prerequisites,
class offerings and modality, and full-time enrollment requisites, and
requiring extensions would be burdensome for such students. Concerns
were raised about USCIS's capacity to process EOS applications in a
timely manner, risking delays or administrative errors that could
result in students unintentionally falling out of status.
Commenters urged DHS to consider the practical challenges and time
constraints associated with the EOS process, noting that existing
oversight through SEVIS, DSO reports, and DHS monitoring is already
robust. They also highlighted that the proposed requirements do not
account for the variety of academic scenarios, such as the needs of
English language students, those in short-term programs, or students in
disciplines with non-standard timelines.
Response: DHS recognizes this rule will require changes for
stakeholders, but maintains the burdens are outweighed by the benefits
of this rule. As explained within the NPRM, the F-1 program has been
subject to fraud, exploitation, and abuse and this rule will help
combat these issues.\171\ While DHS cannot guarantee processing times
for applications filed at USCIS due to numerous governing factors, DHS
will continue to explore system improvements to promote efficiency,
prompt adjudications, and paperwork reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ See 90 FR at 42077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F nonimmigrants who properly file an EOS may remain in the United
States and are considered to be in a period of authorized stay during
that period, consistent with USCIS policy for most nonimmigrants
admitted for a fixed period of admission.\172\ F students may continue
to pursue a full course of study while the EOS is pending, and certain
types of authorized employment are also extended for up to 240 days.
See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iii)(B). Additionally, DHS believes that the
process of requesting an EOS should not hinder timely completion of
research projects, just as traveling abroad and re-entering the United
States and going through inspection under current rules do not hinder
such research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ USCIS Memorandum, supra note 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS disagrees that the extension procedures create uncertainty or
are unduly disruptive. It is the responsibility of the alien to
maintain status, and requiring an extension is consistent with
requirements for other nonimmigrant categories. The 24-month cap for
English language programs is designed to prevent abuse of the F-1
program. DHS acknowledges increased responsibilities for DSOs and
believes these changes are necessary to maintain program integrity and
to obtain compliance with immigration laws. DHS has found that the
existing oversight through SEVIS, DSO reports, and DHS monitoring is
not robust enough and that actual review by immigration officers of
aliens who want to stay beyond their program end date or 4 years is
necessary for program integrity and national security.
b. Financial Documentation
Comments: Commenters opposed requiring students to provide evidence
of sufficient funds for each EOS. One commenter argued that
institutions already verify financial capacity during enrollment and
the requirement is overly burdensome.
Response: DHS requires evidence of sufficient funds for each EOS
filings to ensure students can study without
[[Page 45026]]
unauthorized employment. This is consistent with statutory and
regulatory requirements and is within DHS's authority. Specifically,
the sufficient fund requirement is designed to ensure that applicants
for an EOS under new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(i) meet the statutory and
regulatory eligibility criteria for the nonimmigrant classification
sought. Demonstrating sufficient funds to cover expenses is a critical
component of this eligibility determination, as it directly relates to
the applicant's ability to maintain their status and fulfill the
requirements of their nonimmigrant classification. DHS acknowledges
that the evidence required to demonstrate sufficient funds may involve
detailed financial documentation, such as account statements, receipts,
letters from school accounts offices, or other financial records.
However, these requirements are necessary to ensure the integrity of
the process and to verify that applicants have the financial means to
support their education and related expenses without becoming a public
charge or violating the terms of their status.
4. Acceptable Reasons for Requesting an EOS and Evidence
a. General Comments on Standards for EOS Filing and Approval
Comments: Some commenters supported stricter approval standards,
while others advocated for more lenient standards that account for
research delays, funding gaps, program type, institutional delays, and
emergencies. Commenters urged DHS to clarify what constitutes
``compelling academic reason,'' ``compelling medical reason,'' and
``circumstances beyond a student's control,'' and to recognize program
length and design as qualifying exceptions.
Response: DHS appreciates the diverse perspectives about approval
standards for EOS requests. While the final rule establishes the
regulatory framework and eligibility criteria for EOS, the specific
adjudication standards and consideration of individual circumstances
are matters of agency policy and operational guidance. These
operational details are outside the scope of this rulemaking. DHS will
continue to review and update its internal policies and training to
ensure fair and consistent application of the regulatory criteria.
DHS provides examples of compelling academic, medical reasons, and
circumstances beyond a student's control in new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(i)(C)(2)(i)-(ii), and the list is non-exclusive to allow
for discretion. DHS is not restricting DSOs from inputting program
lengths that align with institutional curricula. If additional time is
needed beyond the initial program length, students must submit evidence
for an extension. Each scenario is evaluated case-by-case.
b. Elimination of the Normal Progress Standard
Comments: Commenters opposed the elimination of the ``normal
progress'' standard, arguing that it is not undefined or difficult to
apply, and it reflects the flexible, individualized nature of academic
programs. Commenters argued institutions already have robust procedures
for evaluating progress. Commenters suggested DHS retain the standard
with a clearer definition, align it with Satisfactory Academic Progress
(SAP) standards, or require documentation from academic advisers or
deans for EOS determinations.
Response: The prior regulations relied on a standard of ``normal
progress'' when addressing program extensions, leaving interpretations
up to DSOs and resulting in inconsistencies in evaluating a student as
each school has different standards and procedures for program
extensions. By eliminating ``normal progress'' for program extensions
and emphasizing that extensions must be granted only in cases where
there is a compelling academic reason, a documented illness or medical
condition, or circumstances beyond a student's control, DHS expects
more consistency throughout all schools when considering an EOS. See
new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(i).
DHS appreciates commenters' suggestions to instead modify the
definition or clarify ``normal progress'' and to ensure alignment with
SAP standards. However, SEVP-certified schools include a diverse range
of institutions, many of which are private and not required to follow
U.S. Department of Education (ED) standards. DHS believes it is more
practical to allow immigration officers to rely on individual schools'
standards and policies to determine normal progress and to review
evidence on a case-by-case basis. The extension process allows students
to submit documentation in support of a program extension, including
letters from advisers or deans.
c. Compelling Academic Reasons and Evidence
Comments: Several commenters stated that the ``compelling academic
reasons'' standard is too narrow, vague, and does not reflect the
realities of academic progression. They argued that higher education is
rarely linear and that the examples provided do not cover all
scenarios. Commenters also opposed codifying terms like ``probation,''
``dismissal,'' and ``suspension,'' as these vary across institutions.
Response: The compelling academic reasons standard is designed to
balance academic realities with statutory requirements that
nonimmigrant students maintain progress toward their educational
objectives. DHS recognizes that unexpected or unforeseen academic
circumstances may arise during the course of study and that, in
appropriate cases, such circumstances may warrant an extension of
status. The standard is not intended to be so rigid as to penalize
students for isolated or temporary academic difficulties. At the same
time, DHS does not consider repeated or prolonged inability to complete
required coursework, when taken as a whole, to necessarily constitute a
compelling academic reason for continued extensions of stay. A
demonstrated pattern of insufficient academic progress may indicate an
unwillingness or inability to complete the program of study within a
reasonable timeframe. Each EOS application will be adjudicated
individually on a case-by-case basis. DHS declines to define
institutional terminology but will continue to require DSOs to report
academic status changes and the effective date or period of suspension,
dismissal, probation, or withdrawal based on their institution's
definitions.
d. Documented Illness or Medical Condition and Evidence
Comments: Commenters expressed concern that the list of medical
professionals who can document a ``compelling medical reason'' is too
narrow and suggested expanding it. A commenter proposed resetting D/S
after medical leave and requested a transparent appeal process.
Response: DHS acknowledges the variety of healthcare providers, but
these changes are outside the scope of the rulemaking and DHS cannot
expand the list without further notice and comment. Immigration
officers will evaluate whether delays are due to compelling academic or
medical reasons. The rule does not alter the appeals process or
availability of appeals.
e. Exceptional Circumstances Outside the Student's Control
Comments: A commenter supported the inclusion of ``exceptional
circumstances outside the student's control'' as a valid basis for
extensions,
[[Page 45027]]
while others suggested expanding the definition to include DSO errors,
research delays, emergencies, and more.
Response: DHS will evaluate each scenario on a case-by-case basis
rather than defining specific circumstances, to avoid inadvertently
limiting eligibility. The process ensures that only legitimate cases
receive extensions.
5. Timely EOS Requests and Reinstatement
Comments: Some commenters supported the requirement for timely EOS
filings and the safeguard against fraud. Others requested clearer
definitions of ``timely submitted,'' clarification about campus
employment limitations, and clarification on whether departing the
United States with a pending EOS application constitutes abandonment.
Commenters sought guidance on late filings, recommended allowing EOS
submissions up to six months before expiration, and raised concerns
about duplicative documentation requirements for EOS and reinstatement,
suggesting F-1 students should be able to request status extensions as
part of reinstatement rather than filing separate applications. Some
suggested that English language students should use the SEVIS HelpDesk
for changes instead of EOS. Commenters also proposed streamlining the
EOS process by identifying longer academic programs at visa issuance
and expediting extensions for students progressing from undergraduate
to graduate programs at the same institution. Some also noted
inconsistencies in employment authorization provisions and requested
that employment eligibility be extended regardless of when the EOS is
filed.
Response: USCIS considers a Form I-539 timely filed when received
before status expires, and there is no regulation preventing early
filing. Generally, EOS applications are not considered abandoned if the
nonimmigrant leaves the United States while the application is pending,
unless admitted on a new I-20 or DS-2019 after expiration. See new 8
CFR 214.1(c)(8). DHS declines to adopt commenters suggestions about
utilizing the SEVP Response Center to extend a program rather than
applying for an EOS with USCIS, as the EOS process is completed in
accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements. DHS also
declines to make exceptions for longer programs or those students
progressing from undergraduate to graduate programs at the same
university because that would defeat the purpose of this rule, which is
to have a specified period after which a student must have a check-in
with an immigration officer so that the government can make sure that
student has not committed any crimes and has properly maintained
status. The EOS process provides immigration officers an opportunity to
directly review and determine whether F, J, and I nonimmigrants who
wish to remain in the United States beyond their fixed period of
admission are complying with U.S. immigration law and are indeed
eligible to retain their nonimmigrant status. DHS will continue to
evaluate opportunities to reduce administrative burdens and improve
efficiency in the future as it continues to develop guidance and system
enhancements, to better support students and institutions while
maintaining program integrity.
This rule does not generally alter the existing employment
authorization regulations which do not permit the F-1 nonimmigrant to
engage in employment during the departure period. Under the final rule,
EOS and EAD applications do not always have to be filed together, as
explained in other parts of this rule, but all employment must cease if
the EOS application is filed after the F-1 completes their course of
study and any authorized post-completion practical training, including
during the departure period. Therefore, DHS declines to modify the
language in this rule to allow continued employment regardless of when
the EOS is filed.
Current system limitations require separate filings for
reinstatement and extension. DHS will continue to explore system
improvements but believes the current process is necessary for program
integrity.
6. EOS Process and Requirements for J Nonimmigrants
a. Concerns About J-1 Program Transfers and Category Changes
Comments: Commenters expressed concern about how the proposed EOS
process would interact with the J-1 transfer process. One commenter
noted that, because the J-1 transfer process only allows the new
program sponsor to extend the J-1 on the expiration date of the
previous sponsor, the proposed EOS requirement could not possibly be
``timely filed'' with USCIS, potentially leading to overstays through
no fault of the nonimmigrant. Another commenter questioned whether J-1
exchange visitors would be considered out-of-status and unable to begin
at their new institutions if they could not file extensions with USCIS
before their Form I-94 expiration due to transfer delays.
Commenters also raised concerns about J-1 category changes, such as
research scholars changing to alien physician status, and whether such
changes would be a valid reason for an EOS. They questioned whether a
physician who does not receive their DS-2019 before their I-94 expires
would be considered out-of-status and ineligible to participate in
their medical training program, and whether an unexpired I-94 based on
a previous DS-2019 would be valid in combination with a new Form DS-
2019.
Response: New 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv) states that an alien in J-1
status seeking to extend his or her stay beyond the currently
authorized period of admission must apply for an EOS, including if a
sponsor issues a Form DS-2019 or successor form extending an alien's
program end date for any reason. An EOS application is considered
timely filed if the receipt date is on or before the date the
authorized admission period expires, including the 30-day grace period.
If the extension application is received during the 30-day period
following the completion of the exchange visitor program, the J-1 may
continue to participate in the program. If the RO is required to update
the program status or program end date for an exchange visitor after
the program end date listed on the most recent Form DS-2019 (or
successor form), the sponsor is required to submit the necessary
correction or reinstatement in the manner and timeframe required by
DoS. Once the record is corrected or reinstated, the J-1 exchange
visitor must submit a request for an EOS to USCIS within 30 days of the
status update. Exchange visitors are required to transfer before their
programs end and should work with their new sponsor to get an updated
Form DS-2019. Category changes and transfers should be coordinated with
timely filings to avoid status issues.
b. Concerns About Late Requests for Extension
Comments: Commenters stated that the proposed regulation at 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(iv)(D) is unclear, especially regarding the fee structure,
reference to fees under 22 CFR 62.43, and the process for correcting or
reinstating status after the program end date. A commenter stated that
current regulations do not require the sponsor to request a
reinstatement or pay a fee if the SEVIS record is not extended by the
program end date, allowing for errors to be corrected in the SEVIS
system without a fee or adjudication. Commenters requested
clarification on whether the 30-day correction and
[[Page 45028]]
reinstatement processes can be used to correct status in cases where
the SEVIS record was extended in a timely manner, but the extension
request to USCIS was filed late or misfiled and returned after the I-94
expired.
Response: Currently, if a sponsor fails to timely extend an
exchange visitor's program, SEVP allows up to 120 days to return the
record to Active status and extend the program end date (Correct Minor
or Technical Infraction). This final rule updates the language which
was previously proposed in 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv)(D) to offer additional
clarity and to remove the reference to ``the required fee'' at 22 CFR
62.43. Once the record is corrected or reinstated, the J-1 must submit
a request for EOS to USCIS within 30 days of the status update.
c. Processing Delays and Program Disruptions
Comments: Commenters expressed concern about USCIS processing times
for EOS applications and the potential for disruptions to J-1 exchange
programs. A few commenters stated that current USCIS processing times
often exceed several months, which would make timely decisions unlikely
for many J-1 categories with already shorter program durations. One
commenter expressed concern that some trainees in lengthy programs
might need to go through the process multiple times.
A couple of commenters stated that while the proposed rule would
allow J-1 exchange visitors to continue their program activities for up
to 240 days after the expiration of their Form I-94 and while an EOS
application is pending, this period is shorter than many academic years
and medical training programs. These commenters further stated that if
an EOS application is still pending after 240 days, exchange visitors
might need to stop working mid-year, causing disruptions to educational
programs, research activities, and patient care. The commenters
recommended that the final rule permit authorization for exchange
teachers to remain authorized until adjudication, regardless of the
240-day limit. One commenter provided discussion of academic calendars
and employment decision-making in support of their recommendation.
Another commenter stated that regardless of the proposed rule, J-1
students who file timely EOS applications should be permitted to remain
in the United States and continue their program activities, including
academic and extracurricular participation, for the full duration of
their DS-2019 extension.
Another commenter noted that the longer processing times may lead
to gaps in work for J-1 physicians, which would mean longer hours for
physicians who are U.S. citizens and potential burn out from those
physicians.\173\ One commenter expressed a similar concern, stating
that if a J-1 trainee or researcher encounters an arbitrary admission
expiration, they may be required to pause or abandon ongoing study
while awaiting an EOS. The commenter also stated that hospitals cannot
provide consistent clinical training or achieve research breakthroughs
if J-1 staff members face unpredictable admission deadlines under the
application of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ The commenter referenced National Academy of Medicine,
Action Collaborative on Clinician Well-Being and Resilience, https://nam.edu/initiatives/clinician-resilience-and-well-being/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter expressed concern that this would be particularly
burdensome on USCIS operations as it would require the submission of
several separate application fees, and another commenter wrote that
this burden would deter foreign physicians from choosing U.S. medical
schools for their training and the schools would thus become less
globally competitive.
Response: DHS has considered the effects of the rule on J-1
nonimmigrant physicians, teachers, and other exchange visitor program
categories. DHS does not intend, through this rule, to discourage J-1
exchange visitors to extend their stay in the United States. DHS does
intend to improve monitoring of this population and support the
integrity of the country's immigration system. DHS disagrees that a
requirement to file an extension request or to depart and reenter the
United States is unduly burdensome, noting that this is a requirement
for most other nonimmigrants, which include teachers and members of
many other professions (e.g. H-1B, L-1, O-1, etc.).
DHS notes that a J-1 nonimmigrant will have a 30-day grace period
after their program end date. See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii)(C). As
such, the receiving sponsor will have 30 days to issue a new DS-2019
and at that time the alien may apply for an extension. If the extension
request is filed within the 30-day period, it will be considered
timely.
DHS appreciates the contributions of J-1 nonimmigrants and does not
intend to unduly interrupt their work. Under this final rule, J-1
nonimmigrants who timely file EOS on or before March 18, 2027, may
engage in J-1 activities, including authorized training and employment,
as permitted by their exchange visitor program, for the period up to
the end date of the DS-2019 submitted with the EOS. J-1 nonimmigrants
who file for EOS after March 17, 2027, may continue employment
activities while their properly filed EOS is pending, for up to 240
days beyond the expiration of their authorized period of admission
which should help to minimize potential interruption in employment. See
new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(viii). In some instances, J-1 nonimmigrants may
choose to depart and reenter the United States to extend their stay.
However, those who are here for unpaid training or for studies are
allowed to continue those programs for the entire time the EOS
application is being adjudicated and are considered in status during
that time.
Regarding the commenter's concerns that EOS requests, including the
need in some instances to file multiple applications, will be
burdensome on USCIS operations, DHS acknowledges there will be an
increase in volume of EOS applications received by USCIS following the
effective date of the final rule as those nonimmigrants who are
required to file EOS begin to do so. DHS has the capability to shift
resources as needed and as appropriate to ensure that the larger
increased volumes are integrated into existing workflows. With the
projected increase in EOS requests, the fees collected for these EOS
requests will allow USCIS to allocate their resources to ensure
continued service.
d. Existing Oversight and Monitoring for J-1 Exchange Visitors
Comments: Commenters stated that the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program
already has sufficient oversight and monitoring, making the proposed
changes unnecessary and duplicative. They noted that J-1 exchange
visitors are subject to rigorous oversight through DoS, Accreditation
Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the J-1 sponsor, and
SEVIS monitoring, and that many J-1 categories already have regulatory
time limits. Commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would
divert USCIS resources from higher-priority enforcement tasks and that
the D/S system was implemented to reduce administrative burden.
Response: DHS appreciates commenters' feedback regarding the
existing oversight and monitoring mechanisms for the J-1 Exchange
Visitor Program. DHS recognizes that the program is subject to rigorous
oversight by DoS, including sponsor vetting, SEVIS monitoring, and, for
certain categories, additional accreditation and sponsorship
requirements such as those provided by ACGME and the Educational
[[Page 45029]]
Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG). DHS also acknowledges
that many J-1 categories already have regulatory time limits and that
the D/S system was originally implemented to reduce administrative
burden for both participants and government agencies.
In drafting the final rule, DHS has carefully considered the
effectiveness of current oversight mechanisms and the concerns raised
about resource allocation and administrative efficiency. DHS determined
that establishing fixed admission periods for J-1 exchange visitors
will enhance program integrity and compliance by allowing for periodic
review of status and eligibility, consistent with DHS's statutory
authority and practices for other nonimmigrant categories. DHS believes
this approach will strengthen the overall integrity of the exchange
visitor program and provide clearer compliance requirements, while
continuing to coordinate with DoS and other relevant entities to
minimize unnecessary duplication and administrative burden.
7. Coordination With DoS and Program Sponsors
Comments: Commenters critiqued the rule for not addressing the
possibility that authorization issues could be resolved directly
between DoS and program sponsors, and for not addressing how DoS delays
may impact the process of applying for EOS through USCIS.
Response: The process currently in place for the coordination
between DoS and sponsors will continue. This process does not negate
the need for further vetting of nonimmigrants in the United States to
ensure that they are complying with the terms of their visa and is
different from what DoS and sponsors do. Sponsors will be made aware of
this rule and its implications and DoS will train sponsors on the rule;
therefore, DHS believes that sponsors will have the training necessary
to avoid any unnecessary delays in processing new DS-2019s so that
nonimmigrants can file for EOS when needed.
8. Concerns About EOS for I Nonimmigrants
Comments: Commenters objected to the need for an extension every
240 days for foreign media representatives, noting that journalists
often require several years to complete assignments. Commenters
questioned whether there would be limits on the number of extensions,
the clarity of denial reasons, and the procedures for existing I visa
holders. Concerns were also raised about the impact on dependents,
including family unity and lawful status during pending EOS, and about
bundled processing for journalists and dependents. Commenters warned
that EOS denial could result in unlawful status and reentry bars.
Commenters proposed that EOS applicants should receive employment
authorization until adjudication without time limits, that the maximum
period of stay should be increased, and that premium or expedited
processing should be available. They also requested bundled or
expedited adjudication for dependents, and that travel by the principal
should not result in denial of dependents' EOS. Other proposals
included eliminating content-based justification requirements for
journalists, affirming that EOS review would be limited to neutral
immigration criteria, and eliminating nationality-specific admission
limits. Some suggested allowing I nonimmigrants to extend visas inside
or outside the United States, or at consulates, and proposed an
automatic extension term of up to two years for I visa holders already
in the United States.
Response: DHS is sensitive to concerns about processing times and
the impact on I nonimmigrants and appreciates the alternatives and
requests proposed by commenters. After considering these, DHS declines
to further modify the final rule. Admitting I nonimmigrants for D/S
afforded them different treatment from most other nonimmigrants. DHS
considered alternatives and chose to admit I nonimmigrants for a
specific time period to ensure oversight and compliance. DHS believes
that the 240-day period is not only sufficient to cover the vast
majority of assignments \174\ but is also an appropriate interval for
the U.S. Government to ensure that the alien remains eligible as an I
nonimmigrant. DHS is adopting an established timeframe with which I
nonimmigrants are already accustomed when they change employers while
in the United States. There is no limit on the number of extensions if
the applicant continues to pursue I activities and meets eligibility
requirements. Dependents may be included in the principal's EOS
application or they may file separately, and extensions for dependents
may not exceed the principal's authorized period. DHS cannot guarantee
processing times but will continue to plan for operational adjustments.
The rule does not change eligibility criteria for dependents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ DHS data shows that 94.6 percent of I's with confirmed
exit data stay less than 240 days. Based on DHS's analysis of ADIS
data identifying length of stay of I-visa holders between 2015 and
2024, valid as of March 21, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS does not believe the rule restricts journalistic activity or
imposes content-based review as DHS will review content for the limited
purpose of confirming that the foreign information media representative
is engaging in bona fide journalism as required to maintain I
nonimmigrant status under INA section 101(a)(15)(I), rather than
engaging in entertainment or promotional purposes. Nationality-specific
admission limits are based on statutory requirements and reciprocity. I
nonimmigrants may apply for extensions inside the U.S. or by traveling
abroad and being inspected and admitted by a CBP officer; consular
processing is not addressed in this rule.
An I nonimmigrant who timely files an EOS application before the
expiration of their authorized period of stay is considered to be in a
period of authorized stay while the application is pending with USCIS.
See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5). If the EOS application is denied and the
authorized period of stay has expired, the individual must immediately
cease employment and depart the United States. DHS encourages I
nonimmigrants to closely monitor their admission period and to file
extension requests as early as possible to minimize the risk of lapses
in status. A lapse in status may result in accrual of unlawful presence
and bars to reentry. Under current law, accrual of unlawful presence
for more than 180 days may result in bars to reentry under INA
212(a)(9)(B). USCIS does not automatically extend the stay of
dependents to match the principal's new period of stay if the principal
departs without his or her dependents and is subsequently admitted by
CBP. If the principal's EOS application is deemed abandoned because CBP
grants a new AUD, USCIS can conduct a split adjudication of the
dependents' EOS applications, and USCIS may grant the dependents up to
the principal's new AUD, but only beginning when the dependents'
initial validity period ends.
9. Denial of EOS for Family Members and Clarification Requests
Comments: Commenters expressed concern about requiring F-2
dependents to file separate EOS applications, citing financial and
emotional burdens and requested clarification on whether a denial for
the principal would affect dependents.
Response: DHS notes that dependents may be included in the
principal's EOS application for no additional fee if statuses expire
simultaneously. If filed separately, each requires a fee. If the
[[Page 45030]]
principal's EOS is denied, dependents' EOS will also be denied.
Comments: A commenter criticized the language regarding denying EOS
for J-2 family members due to criminal activity or unauthorized work
and asked if the same would apply to F-1 students and F-2 dependents.
The commenter also requested clarification on whether denial of EOS for
a J-1 principal would result in denial for all J-2 family members,
whether this applies only to jointly filed extensions, and if a denial
of the J-1 would require all to leave the United States.
Response: All nonimmigrants, whether principal applicants or
dependents are denied EOS if they are found to have committed any
crimes while in the United States or have worked without authorization.
Under the D/S system this was more difficult to identify because there
was no requirement to touch base with immigration officers unless they
traveled and were denied entry due to these reasons. This rule will put
F, J, and I nonimmigrants on par with all other nonimmigrants. As with
all other nonimmigrant visa holders, dependents can be denied EOS or
entry into the United States for criminal activity or work without
authorization while the principal and other dependents are granted EOS
or entry into the United States. However, the reverse is not true. If a
principal is found inadmissible for criminal activity or working
without authorization, the principal and all the dependents are denied
EOS or entry. It does not matter if the EOS was filed under one
application or separate applications.
10. Nonimmigrant Status vs. Period of Authorized Stay
Comments: Commenters expressed concern that the rule provides only
a ``period of authorized stay'' rather than maintaining valid F-1 or J-
1 status while an EOS application is pending. They noted this
distinction has legal implications and recommended revising the
language to clarify that applicants with timely filed EOS applications
are considered in valid status.
Response: DHS notes that timely filing of an EOS places the alien
in a period of authorized stay, avoiding unlawful presence based upon
mere expired status and enabling the alien to remain in the United
States. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iii). If the EOS is approved, the
alien is considered to have maintained status throughout the pendency
and subsequent validity period. This approach is consistent with USCIS
policy for most nonimmigrants admitted for a fixed period; therefore,
no clarification in the regulatory text is needed.
H. Background Checks and Biometrics
1. Support and Concerns Regarding Additional Security Measures
Comments: Many commenters voiced disapproval about requiring
foreign students to undergo more frequent background checks and
biometric collections and instead stated existing government oversight
is sufficient. Commenters suggested targeted enforcement, background
checks, and additional biometrics collections should be used instead of
blanket policies. A small number of commenters stated additional
background checks and biometric data collection could address security
concerns without broad regulatory change. Additionally, some commenters
expressed support for following the 2019 GAO recommendation \175\ to
require DSOs and ROs to undergo more training and more rigorous
background checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ GAO 19-297, supra note 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS disagrees that existing government oversight is
sufficient for F, J, and I nonimmigrants. Under the D/S framework,
there are no background checks required while the alien is in the
United States unless the F, J, or I nonimmigrant applies for a change
of status to a different nonimmigrant status, or another benefit with
USCIS. As a result, under D/S, F, J, and I nonimmigrants can be present
for long periods in the United States without undergoing U.S.
government review in the form of an EOS application, including
accompanying background checks or subsequent visa application or
inspection at a POE.
DHS believes that additional background checks and biometric data
collection is appropriate to enhance oversight, prevent fraud, and
address national security concerns. By transitioning from D/S to
admission for a fixed period of time, DHS will be able to conduct
periodic background checks of nonimmigrants to mitigate national
security risks and enhance compliance with immigration law. Further,
collection of biometric data will verify identity, monitor compliance,
and detect potential risks. These measures align with other
nonimmigrant visa categories and are consistent with the purpose of
this rulemaking. Targeting specific groups of people or individuals, as
some commenters suggests, could lead to constitutional violations and
would be programmatically difficult to implement. Therefore, DHS
believes it is easier and more fair to implement this provision across
the board. DHS recognizes commenter's support to require DSOs and ROs
to undergo more training and more rigorous background checks, but DHS
declines to adopt requirements in regulation at this time. Under this
rulemaking, DHS offices will be providing greater oversight to prevent
and deter fraud and abuse within the F, J, and I nonimmigrant
categories.
2. Request for Waiver of Biometrics and Interviews
Comments: Commenters called on DHS to waive the biometrics and
interview requirement, including in cases where students that have no
violations and are bona fide students. Commenters stated that mandatory
biometrics collection for EOS applications would be logistically
unfeasible given limited USCIS appointments. One commenter believed I-
visa applicants should be exempt from biometrics, stating biometrics
add little security value but create significant barriers.
Response: DHS declines to waive the biometrics and interview
requirements, as those steps are critical in the vetting process of
nonimmigrants and are necessary for program integrity, identity
verification, background checks, and national security. DHS will
continue to evaluate operational capacity to ensure effective and
feasible collection of biometrics. As part of the EOS application
process for F, J, and I nonimmigrants, USCIS may require biometrics
(such as fingerprints, photographs, and signatures) as provided in 8
CFR 103.16, and applicants may be required to appear for an interview
under 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). The purpose of collecting biometrics is to
confirm identity, conduct background and security checks, and screen
for national security or fraud concerns. The requirements in this rule
are not unique in that DHS has continually amended and incorporated
biometric requirements regarding the admission process and sharing data
with relevant agency components.
I. Employment Authorization
1. General Feedback on Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization
Comments: Some commenters opposed the automatic extension of
employment authorization during pending EOS filings, suggesting it
could incentivize meritless filings. Others appreciated the inclusion
of automatic extensions for on-campus work, CPT, Special Student
Relief, and Severe Economic Hardship, and recommended expanding these
authorizations.
[[Page 45031]]
Commenters highlighted the importance of employment authorization for
part-time work, internships, and career development, noting that
without it, students may not be able to afford tuition or living
expenses.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenter's concern that the
automatic extension of employment authorization during pending EOS
filings could create incentives for nonimmigrants to file meritless EOS
requests. DHS notes separate commenters' appreciation for the inclusion
of this automatic extension of employment authorization during pending
EOS filings in certain situations, including commenters' request to
expand this automatic extension. DHS carefully considered the options
and based this timeframe on the period of stay authorized in 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20). DHS believes that adopting an already established
timeframe, to which at least thirteen nonimmigrant classifications are
already accustomed, while also requiring the nonimmigrant to leave the
United States immediately for a denied EOS request, is reasonable and
allows authorized work for a limited period of time and activities
consistent with the classification while maintaining program integrity.
2. Proposed 240-Day Auto-Extension Period
Comments: Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed 240-
day automatic extension of employment authorization while an EOS
application is pending would be insufficient given USCIS processing
times and backlogs. They recommended increasing the length of automatic
extension, with some suggesting it last for the duration of the pending
EOS request, including for OPT and STEM OPT. One commenter stated that
USCIS processing times include 30-60 days for SEVIS updates, university
admission cycles typically span 6-12 months, and OPT and CPT
applications require 90 or more days of lead time. Commenters wrote
that the processing times for I-539s often exceed 240 days; one noted
that that during the first Trump administration, backlogs of Form I-539
grew as long as 18 months. Commenters also wrote that the lack of an
option for expedited processing for the I-539 is a critical flaw.
Commenters stated that additional adjudication volume, coupled with
new screening requirements, staffing reductions, and the complexity of
training new adjudicators would likely exacerbate these delays. A
commenter stated that it would shift limited USCIS resources away from
higher priority cases such as asylum or family reunification. One
commenter cited a report stating that DHS will face additional EOS
requests from 220,122 F-1 students and 240,583 J-1 exchange visitors
each year.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ The commenter referenced Chishti, M. and Gelatt, J.,
Antiquated U.S. Immigration System Ambles into the Digital World,
Migration Policy Institute (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS acknowledges and recognizes concerns that USCIS will
experience an increased workload due to an expected increase in volume
of EOS applications, following the effective date of the final rule.
However, as noted in the NPRM, DHS will not require those aliens in F-1
status who have timely and properly filed an application for post-
completion OPT or a STEM OPT on or before March 18, 2027 to file an EOS
application. Those aliens are only required to file the application for
employment authorization for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT extension.
DHS expects this flexibility will mitigate the potential processing
delays associated with Form I-539. DHS will continue planning
operational adjustments to address future processing times and believes
that a temporary measure is appropriate as these processing times are
subject to change. In addition, USCIS is a fee funded agency and may
set fees to support the additional workload associated with the
adjudication of these cases and can continue to prioritize higher
priority cases as needed. USCIS will account for the projected volume
of filings and level of effort necessary to adjudicate various
immigration benefit requests when conducting its biennial assessment of
fees.
Comments: Commenters requested clarification on whether it will be
legal for them to stay in the United States while their OPT or EOS
applications are still pending after 240 days. One commenter
recommended clarifying the effect of departure while EOS or EAD is
pending. Another commenter requested clarification on whether students
approved for OPT accrue unemployment days in SEVIS while awaiting EOS
adjudication.
Commenters requested clarification on several other aspects of the
proposed rule, particularly regarding transfers while an EOS
application is pending. A commenter said that there are numerous
statements throughout the proposed rule text that seem to ignore the 4-
year admission limits or the 240-day extension of employment
authorization while the EOS application is pending, citing proposed
214.1(a)(4)(iii) as an example. A commenter recommended that DHS
clarify whether an F-1 student with a pending EOS application will
remain eligible to: (1) timely file an OPT application, (2) have that
application adjudicated without delay, and (3) begin authorized
employment while the application is pending, provided all other
eligibility requirements are met.
Response: This rule provides that an alien with F-1 status whose
admission period on Form I-94 has expired, but who has timely filed an
EOS application, will be authorized to continue pursuing a full course
of study after the expiration of the admission period until USCIS
adjudicates the EOS application.\177\ This provides nonimmigrant
students with ongoing authorization to continue studies as long as the
student has timely filed his or her EOS and nonimmigrant students will
not be penalized if USCIS is unable to adjudicate his or her EOS
application before the student's new term or course of study is
underway. In such cases, the student will be able to continue pursuing
his or her full course of study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new provision at 8 CFR 214.1(a)(4)(i) addresses aliens applying
for admission as F nonimmigrants. This new section regulates admission
periods at points of entry when an EOS application is pending (if they
have time remaining on the period of stay authorized prior to departure
or after a period of admission has expired and when the alien seeks
admission with a Form I-20 for a program end date beyond their
previously authorized period of admission). For pending applications
for OPT and STEM OPT, the provision allows for admission of the F-1
students for the time recommended by the DSOs on the I-20 (plus 30
days). These aliens will be admitted for either a new period of time or
the remaining period of time in F-1 status. A pending EOS may be deemed
abandoned if the alien leaves the United States, applies for admission
while his or her EOS application is pending, and is admitted based on a
new Form I-20 or DS-2019.\178\ In this case, the AUD provided by CBP on
the alien's I-94 would govern.\179\ This is because, in these cases,
CBP's grant of a new period of authorized stay would supersede the
pending EOS application seeking a period of authorized stay, rendering
the EOS application superfluous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ See new 8 CFR 214.1(8)(ii).
\179\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per this rule, F-1 students with properly filed, pending EOS
applications will be considered to be in a period of authorized stay
and may
[[Page 45032]]
remain in the United States while the application is pending, and may
continue to pursue a full course of study, but are prohibited from
engaging in employment until their EOS applications and applications
for employment authorization based on either an internship with an
international organization, pre-completion OPT, or post-completion OPT
are approved. For F-1 nonimmigrants who have timely applied for EOS and
are currently authorized for on-campus CPT and employment authorization
due to severe economic hardship, the rule provides the automatic
extension of authorized employment to 240 days. Severe economic
hardship employment authorization resulting from emergent circumstances
under the redesignated paragraph 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vi) is automatically
extended for up to 240 days or until the end date stated in the Federal
Register notice announcing the suspension of certain requirements,
whichever is earlier. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii). Further, J-1
exchange visitors may also continue their employment for up to 240
days. See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(vii)(A).
DHS recognizes commenter's request for clarification about whether
students approved for OPT will accrue unemployment days in SEVIS while
awaiting EOS adjudication. If the student does not have a valid OPT
employment authorization, they will not incur unemployment time in
SEVIS.
In response to the requested clarification on the transfer process
while an EOS application is pending, DHS retained certain existing
school transfer procedures while implementing new restrictions to
prevent the abuse of the F classification. This rule will restrict
school transfers and changes of educational objectives within a
student's first academic year of a program of study, unless an
exception is authorized by SEVP. This rule also prohibits F-1 students
in a graduate level program of study from changing educational
objectives or transferring at any point during their program of study,
but it does allow SEVP to authorize an exception to the transfer
prohibition due to extenuating circumstances.
Additionally, DHS has updated the number of expected EOS requests
using updated data for the regulatory impact analysis of the final
rule. DHS expects 390,052 F Visa and 31,007 J Visa EOS requests in Year
10, when the number of EOS requests annually is expected to be more
stable.
Comments: Many commenters suggested that DHS use SEVIS data to
facilitate automatic extension of status for students in good standing
to prevent administrative burden. One commenter suggested that DHS
leverage its access to SEVIS data to identify which pending EOS
requests should be subject to an RFE after filing, rather than imposing
a fixed period of admission on all students. One commenter reasoned
that even with fixed admission periods, DHS could develop new EOS
protocols that would provide the compliant majority of F and J
nonimmigrants with flexibility, predictability, and certainty in
maintaining their status. One commenter recommended that the I-94 and
an EAD receipt notice serving as evidence of eligibility for an
automatic extension up to 240 days. One commenter recommended that DHS
remove the 30/60 day I-765 filing requirement as it proposed to do in
2020.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' proposals to utilize
SEVIS data to grant automatic extensions as that is the current system
and it is not working. However, both USCIS and CBP will utilize
information in SEVIS to identify fraud and abuse in EOS filings and
admission requests. As noted in the NPRM, there has been considerable
fraud and abuse even with DHS leveraging SEVIS data. DHS believes that
the mechanisms that are implemented in this rule are the best tools to
combat fraud and abuse. Furthermore, DHS has considered and disagrees
with commenters' proposals regarding the 240-day period. DHS based the
240-day timeframe on the period of stay authorized in 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20), which generally provides an automatic extension of
employment authorization of 240 days to aliens whose status has
expired, but on whose behalf an application for EOS was timely filed
through a Form I-539. DHS believes that adopting an already established
timeframe that aligns with other nonimmigrant classifications is
reasonable and will help minimize disruptions to on-campus employment
by teaching assistants, post-graduates working on research projects,
and other positions that are integral to an F-1 student's educational
program. Additionally, given that USCIS's average EAD processing time
is typically 60-120 days for foreign students and 90-120 for most
others, a 240-day timeframe provides sufficient flexibility in case of
unexpected delays.
Comments: Commenters also raised concerns about the effect of
travel during the 240-day period, including scenarios where a family
emergency could require travel abroad, resulting in the EOS application
being deemed abandoned. Additionally, commenters stated that the 240-
day extension does not account for the most common extension scenarios,
such as extensions for a summer or a single academic term, which are
often less than 240 days.
Commenters noted that employment disruptions due to processing
delays could negatively impact educational institutions, employers,
research projects, and campus operations. They requested clarification
on legal status during pending applications, the effect of departure,
and eligibility for OPT while EOS is pending.
Response: DHS understands the commenters' concerns regarding
circumstances that may require international travel during the 240-day
extension period. In the NPRM, DHS specifically considers scenarios
where an F, J, or I nonimmigrant with a pending EOS application may
need to travel abroad (e.g., for a family emergency). The NPRM states
that USCIS will not consider the EOS application abandoned if the alien
departs the United States while the application is pending, provided
that the previously authorized period of admission has not expired, and
the alien seeks admission for the balance of the previously authorized
admission period. However, if the alien departs and seeks admission
with a new Form I-20 or DS-2019 for a program end date beyond their
previously authorized period of admission while the EOS is pending,
USCIS may deem the EOS application abandoned.
DHS appreciates commenters expressing concern that the 240-day
extension does not account for the most common extension scenarios,
such as extensions for a summer or a single academic term, which are
often less than 240 days. But, the 240-day extension period does
generally allow for nonimmigrants who timely request short extensions
(lasting less than 240 days) to continue their activities consistent
with their classification while the EOS is pending. There is an
exception for I nonimmigrants with passports from PRC (excluding Hong
Kong SAR and Macau SAR), where the period is up to 90 days.
DHS believes the 240-day period is sufficient and aligns with other
nonimmigrant classifications. Applicants with properly filed, pending
EOS applications are considered to be in a period of authorized stay
and may continue their studies, but are prohibited from employment
until their EOS and EAD are approved, except for certain types of
employment that are automatically extended discussed elsewhere in this
rule. Generally, F-1 students may not engage in post-
[[Page 45033]]
completion OPT while an EOS is pending, but there is an exception
during the transition period for this rule.
DHS acknowledges concerns about increased workload and processing
delays. To mitigate these, DHS will not require F-1 students who timely
file for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT on or before March 18, 2027 to
file an EOS application for the requested period of post-completion OPT
or STEM OPT; only the employment authorization application is
required.\180\ If the alien's application for post-completion OPT or
STEM OPT employment authorization is approved, the alien will be
authorized to remain in the United States in F status until the
expiration date of the EAD, plus 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Impact on Pending Employment Authorization for OPT and STEM OPT and
Travel
Comments: A commenter requested clarification on how the proposed
rule would impact students with pending employment authorization
applications who are admitted based on a DSO's recommended employment
end date for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT. The commenter stated that
the proposed changes that impact post-completion OPT and/or STEM OPT
are confusing and appear to address a situation in which an OPT or STEM
OPT applicant travels while their OPT or STEM OPT Form I-765
application is pending, but more analysis or clarification from DHS is
needed.
Response: DHS appreciates commenters' concerns, but, as proposed in
the NPRM, if an alien in F, J, or I nonimmigrant status timely files an
application for EOS, USCIS will not consider the application abandoned
if the alien departs the United States while the application is
pending, provided that when the alien seeks admission, the previously
authorized period of admission has not expired, and the alien seeks
admission for the balance of the previously authorized admission
period. See new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(8)(i). However, an application for EOS
may be deemed abandoned if an alien departs the United States and seeks
admission with a new Form I-20 or DS-2019 for a program end date beyond
their previously authorized period of admission while the application
for EOS is pending. As noted in the NPRM, USCIS will not consider as
abandoned any corresponding applications for employment authorization.
See new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(8)(ii).
If USCIS approves the Form I-765 and the EAD expiration date is
different from the expiration date on the I-94, the F-1 nonimmigrant
would still be authorized to stay in the United States until the
expiration date indicated on the I-94, even if the F-1 nonimmigrant
ceases employment upon the expiration of the EAD. (and assuming the F-1
nonimmigrant does not violate any terms of the authorized stay). See
new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i). DHS also notes that aliens in F, J, and I
nonimmigrant status should travel with a copy of their Form I-797C,
Notice of Action, or successor form, which confirms the receipt of
either their Form I-539 or Form I-765, along with proposed length of
stay as evidenced by the Form I-20, DS-2019, or letter of employment
for foreign media organization. See new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(8)(iii).
4. OPT and EOS/Employment Authorization Requirements
Comments: Commenters expressed concern about the requirement for
students seeking to engage in OPT to file both an EOS and an employment
authorization application, citing duplicative, burdensome, and costly
processes. The commenters noted potential delays or misalignment in the
processing of the two forms could prevent students from starting OPT on
time, harming their education and professional development. Commenters
also requested clarification on concurrent filing and premium
processing. Furthermore, commenters recommended that F-1 status be
automatically extended with OPT approval, and that OPT and EOS
applications be bundled or adjudicated together, or that Form I-765 be
updated to include an EOS for an increase in efficiency. Some suggested
eliminating the EOS requirement for OPT or STEM OPT altogether.
Response: DHS appreciates these concerns and clarifies that, under
the final rule, F-1 students who timely file for post-completion OPT or
STEM OPT within six months of the effective date of this final rule are
not required to file an EOS application. The only form that the
nonimmigrant will need to file is the Form I-765. For others,
concurrent filing is recommended, and related cases will be adjudicated
together. DHS believes this approach balances regulatory compliance
with minimizing disruptions. DHS will continue to assess resource
allocation and processing improvements. At this time, however, EOS and
EAD applications must be filed on separate forms but can be filed
together at the same time. And the need to file EOS is based on the
program end date on a student's I-20. Therefore, a student who opts to
engage in OPT during his or her program rather than after completion,
will only need to apply for an EAD, and not an EOS. However, under this
rule, an F-1 student would need to apply for an EOS if more time is
needed to complete their program, apply for OPT, STEM OPT, or begin a
new program of study. The student will need to work with their DSO to
ensure that the EOS application is timely filed.
5. Employment Authorization Processing Delays
a. OPT and STEM OPT
Comments: Commenters remarked that the proposed rule left
considerable ambiguity around processes and timelines associated with
post-completion OPT, including whether students would be able to begin
OPT if their employment authorization was approved while their EOS was
still pending. Commenters expressed concern that if they are required
to file an I-539 while on OPT authorization, and are denied or
otherwise delayed, then it would instantly end their F-1 nonimmigrant
status and cancel OPT work authorization. One commenter stated that it
is unclear what steps should be taken if one wishes to apply for OPT
while EOS is pending. Commenters asked how DHS would handle dual
applications and ensure the EOS application is processed before the
work authorization. A commenter expressed concern that the rule would
replace a single-step process with two separate USCIS applications by
requiring the filing of both an EOS and Form I-765 to engage in OPT.
Specifically, the commenter explained that after receiving the DSO's
OPT recommendation, students would first need to submit Form I-539
(Extension of Stay) to USCIS, including the OPT-endorsed I-20, filing
fees, biometrics, and proof of maintained status. Only after securing
this extension would they be able to proceed in filing Form I-765 for
work authorization. The commenter stated that the rule doubles the
number of applications, fees, and adjudication timelines.
Another commenter argued that almost all F-1 students would be
required to expedite their process, which would be a financial burden.
Another commenter cited an anecdote of a friend whose OPT application
was delayed for almost 5 months, making it almost impossible to find a
job. One commenter wrote that DSOs would need additional training on
how to recommend EOS for a student in SEVIS
[[Page 45034]]
and may take on legal liability should students request advice on their
EOS applications.
Commenters cited studies showing the economic benefits of OPT,
including a study that OPT does not cost U.S. workers their jobs or
decrease their wages, and an analysis that found curtailing OPT would
result in the loss of 443,000 jobs, including 255,000 jobs held by U.S.
workers.\181\ One commenter also flagged that many students use OPT or
CPT to do service-based volunteer or internship training after
graduation. Another commenter cited a study that found unemployment
rates to be lower in areas with larger numbers of students working
through OPT as a share of workers in STEM occupations.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ Commenters referenced Optional Practical Training and
International Students After Graduation, Niskanen Center (2019) and
The Economic Impact of Curbing the Optional Practical Training
Program, Business Roundtable (December 2018).
\182\ The commenter referenced Zavodny, M., International
Students, STEM OPT, and the U.S. STEM Workforce, National Foundation
for American Policy (March 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters expressed concern that the proposed requirements would
dissuade employers from hiring foreign students due to uncertainty
about when students could begin work, potentially leading to missed
project milestones, increased turnover, and a weaker position in global
talent competition. Commenters added that employers may be unwilling to
extend offers or initiate onboarding for students whose OPT
authorization is uncertain, which would deny students valuable
professional opportunities through no fault of their own.
Multiple commenters recommended alternative solutions for OPT
situations. One commenter recommended that F-1 status be automatically
extended with OPT approval. Another commenter noted that currently, as
part of the I-765 adjudication, many USCIS officers issue RFEs to
confirm that F-1 students have maintained their status. USCIS could
modify the I-765 instructions to require the submission of maintenance
of status documents.
Commenters expressed appreciation for the inclusion of the 180-day
automatic extension of OPT-related employment authorization while STEM
OPT extension requests are pending. However, some commenters expressed
concern that USCIS processing delays could result in situations where
petitions remain pending beyond the 180 days provided. Commenters
recommended updating the automatic extension period to either lengthen
it or allow conditional continuation of employment authorization until
Form I-765 applications are adjudicated, without a specified maximum
period. One commenter recommended that DHS pause the OPT unemployment
clock during documented 221(g) administrative processing.
A commenter asked DHS whether a student filing a change of status
from an undergraduate to a graduate degree would see their OPT or STEM
OPT work authorization continue without interruption, and if not, what
bridging mechanism would prevent status gaps and unlawful-presence
accrual.
Response: When USCIS receives an application, an officer searches
DHS systems to locate related files. This process will not change once
this final rule goes into effect. If USCIS receives an extension
request, or OPT request, USCIS will conduct searches to determine if a
related application has been filed. If a related file is found, both
cases will be worked together.
DHS disagrees that the requirement to file Form I-539 to extend an
alien's stay in the United States beyond their fixed period of
admission is unnecessary when an alien is also filing Form I-765
requesting employment authorization for OPT. These two forms serve two
distinct purposes and require two separate adjudications. The request
for EOS governs the alien's status and determines whether that alien
remains eligible for the classification, whereas the request for
employment authorization is focused on whether the alien is eligible
for OPT pursuant to his or her studies. A student who opts to engage in
OPT during his or her program rather than after completion, will only
need to apply for an EAD, and not an EOS. However, under this rule, an
F-1 student would need to apply for an EOS if more time is needed to
complete their program, apply for OPT, STEM OPT, or begin a new program
of study. The student will need to work with their DSO to ensure that
the EOS application is timely filed. Under the final rule, DSOs and ROs
will have to spend approximately 135 hours for rule familiarization and
adaptation in the first year after the rule takes effect. To minimize
disruptions, the final rule includes provisions for automatic EOS and
employment authorization for F-1, J, and I nonimmigrants who timely
file EOS applications. These provisions help prevent interruptions in
activities and employment while applications are pending.
During the transition period, under the final rule, aliens in F-1
status who have timely filed Form I-765 for post-completion OPT or a
STEM OPT extension on or before March 18, 2027, will not be required to
file an EOS application, but, instead, need only approval of the Form
I-765.\183\ DHS believes this will help alleviate concerns regarding
the impact of potential processing delays on such applicants. After
this period, an F-1 student recommended for post-completion OPT must
apply for an EOS and employment authorization and may not engage in
post-completion OPT unless such employment authorization is
granted.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)(i).
\184\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the student wishes to begin a new program at a higher
educational level, they must obtain a new Form I-20 and, if the new
program is not completed within the current admission period, apply for
EOS before the end of their current authorized stay (including the 30-
day grace period).
DHS acknowledges some foreign students may face delays or other
situations that limit opportunities to participate in OPT.
Nonimmigrants studying in the United States on F-1 visas, by statute,
must be bona fide students who seek to enter the United States
temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of
study.\185\ DHS recognizes the importance of balancing regulatory
compliance with minimizing disruptions. However, the loss of training
opportunities for foreign students does not outweigh the national
security benefits of having a fixed period of admission and EOS
procedure. Additionally, the rule allows F-1 students recommended for
post-completion OPT or STEM OPT to remain in the United States without
filing a separate EOS application, provided they timely file for an EAD
within six months of the rule's effective date. If approved, the
nonimmigrant will be granted F-1 status until the EAD expires, plus 60
days. If the EAD is denied, they can stay until their program end date
plus 60 days if otherwise maintaining status.\186\ Additionally, DHS
acknowledges the benefits of OPT opportunities to both nonimmigrant
students and employers for building a workforce and avoiding potential
labor shortages in technology fields. However, DHS notes that the
primary purpose of the F-1 student classification is not employment.
Instead, the purpose of OPT and STEM OPT is to complement a student's
academic experience in the United
[[Page 45035]]
States and to provide practical training in the student's major area of
study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ INA 101(a)(15)(F)(i)-(ii); 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i)-
(ii).
\186\ See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per this rule, F-1 students with properly filed, pending EOS
applications will be considered to be in a period of authorized stay
and may remain in the United States while the application is pending,
and may continue to pursue a full course of study, but are prohibited
from engaging in employment until their EOS applications and
applications for employment authorization based on either an internship
with an international organization, pre-completion OPT, or post-
completion OPT are approved. The rule specifically provides that an F-1
student who has timely filed an EOS application will be able to
continue engaging in CPT (or other employment such as on-campus or
severe economic hardship employment) for up to 240 days while the EOS
is pending with USCIS, even if the period of admission on Form I-94 or
successor form expired.\187\ During the automatic extension, if the EOS
application is filed during the 30-day grace period after completion of
studies or OPT, the student may continue studying but may not engage in
practical training or employment until the EOS is approved. See new 8
CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iii)(B). If the EOS is denied, the alien must cease
working and depart the United States immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS acknowledges commenters' suggestions to automatically extend F-
1 status with OPT approval, lengthen or remove existing automatic
extension periods, or pause the OPT unemployment clock in certain
circumstances. These recommendations would require changes to
regulatory and policy frameworks beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
DHS will, however, continue to monitor implementation of this rule and
may consider whether additional adjustments or guidance are warranted
in the future.
b. Curricular Practical Training
Comments: Commenters expressed the importance of CPT and the
ability of students to participate in an uninterrupted program.
Commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would increase
uncertainty for CPT students while their EOS is pending. One commenter
stated that CPT is a critical bridge for STEM students who are not
accepted to an H-1B position.
One commenter wrote that a DSO must recommend the EOS in SEVIS
before the program end date but has no visibility into when the student
actually filed or when USCIS received the application. Without this
information, the commenter reported the DSO cannot reliably confirm
ongoing CPT eligibility or advise on status, creating avoidable
compliance risk. This commenter recommended enabling real-time data
sharing among USCIS, CBP, and SEVIS, and standardizing I-94 issuance
and update practices. Commenters requested clarity on how DSOs can
confirm eligibility and SEVIS, USCIS, and CBP data should be
integrated. Another commenter wrote that DHS would need to provide
clarity on how a student who would have to file an EOS for their last
semester of studies in which CPT is also required to meet the course
requirements, as the EOS takes a minimum of four months to be approved,
the semester would end, and the student would fail to get their degree
because they could not get CPT.
Commenters expressed uncertainty and requested clarification about
how CPT would be handled under the proposed rule. One of these
commenters noted that proposed 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v) states that
students are not eligible for any practical training or employment
while their EOS is pending, but proposed rule 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii)
states that CPT authorizations will be ``automatically extended.'' They
said they did not understand how both could be true at the same time.
This same commenter also requested clarification around CPT and
severe economic hardship put forth by proposed 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii).
The commenter questioned how CPT could be ``automatically'' extended
when DSOs are only able to authorize CPT up to the I-20 program end
date, asking whether DSOs could authorize CPT beyond a student's
authorized duration of stay as long as the Form I-539 has been filed
within the previous 240 days. The commenter said that DHS needs to
consider details related to employment, training, and potential Form I-
9 discrepancies, stating that the proposed rule, as written, could lead
to confusion that will cause students to violate status without
knowing. The commenter additionally voiced concern that the rule
expects all employers to understand what a student's work eligibility
is when applying for an EOS.
Some recommended allowing DSOs to add or update CPT authorizations
while EOS is pending and suggested automatic extensions for students in
critical technology fields. They reasoned that adding new CPT
authorizations allows students to continue making progress toward
completing their program and avoid unnecessary delays due to an
inability to complete internships, practical, or other required
experiences. They further reasoned that updating existing
authorizations allows DSOs to appropriately report when a CPT
experience has ended. The commenter also suggested that DHS should also
ensure any modifications to SEVIS allow for the technical capability to
make these edits to a student's record.
One commenter stated that if the misuse of CPT is an issue, then
DHS could limit CPT to one program per level or eliminate it entirely
rather than punishing students who have no intent to misuse CPT.
Another commenter recommended specifically rescinding day-one CPT.
Response: DHS understands the concerns but disagrees with the
premise that the rule will increase uncertainty for F-1 students
engaged in CPT. The rule specifically provides that an F-1 student who
has timely filed an EOS application will be able to continue engaging
in CPT, on-campus employment, or severe economic hardship employment,
for up to 240 days while the EOS is pending with USCIS, even if the
period of admission on Form I-94 or successor form expired.\188\ This
means that the CPT will be automatically extended for up to 240 days or
until USCIS adjudicates the EOS application. During this period, the F-
1 student will be in a period of authorized stay, even if the Form I-94
or successor form expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An EOS application is timely filed if it is filed before the Form
I-94 or successor form expires, including the 30-day grace period for
departure under new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v).\189\ However, it is important
to note that if the EOS is filed during the 30-day grace period for
departure, the student may not continue or begin engaging in practical
training or other employment (i.e., on-campus or severe economic
hardship employment) until the EOS is approved; the student may only
continue his or her full course of study during this time. In other
words, if the EOS is filed within the 30-day grace period, the F-1
student does not receive an automatic extension of CPT and must wait
for approval of the EOS application before engaging in CPT, even if the
EOS is considered to be ``timely filed.'' For these reasons, to avoid
any interruptions to CPT, students are encouraged to apply for EOS
application prior to entering the 30-day grace period for departure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be clear, the rule does not make substantive changes to the
eligibility or the process for requesting CPT authorization under 8 CFR
214.2(f)(10)(i). The first step for
[[Page 45036]]
requesting CPT authorization begins with the school's DSO and does not
require an EAD from USCIS. The DSO endorses the Form I-20 for CPT, and
students must continue to meet the requirements under the existing
regulations. Similarly, the provisions in this rule do not affect the
DSO's role in authorizing CPT; it only affects the student's employment
eligibility status during the EOS process. To grant authorization for a
student to engage in CPT, the DSO will continue to update the student's
record in SEVIS as being authorized for CPT and provide the endorsed
Form I-20 or successor form to the student prior to the commencement of
employment, indicating that CPT has been approved, as required by the
existing regulations.\190\ For purposes of the admission period, if the
F-1 student's 4-year fixed period is about to expire, then the student
will need to file a timely EOS application with USCIS consistent with
the new provisions of this rule, as discussed earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of employment eligibility verification Form I-9 for
CPT, the student's authorized employment period, when combined with a
notice issued by USCIS indicating receipt of an EOS application, will
be considered unexpired for up to 240 days or until USCIS issues a
decision on the EOS application, or for CPT, until the CPT end date
authorized by the DSO on Form I-20 or successor form, whichever is
earlier.
DHS has carefully considered the alternative recommendations for
CPT put forth by the commenters but declines to adopt changes to CPT at
this time. Specifically, this rule focuses on eliminating the D/S
framework and setting fixed admission periods and EOS requirements, and
it was not intended to substantially revise CPT provisions. As such,
amendments to CPT, such as exceptions for certain fields or eliminating
Day-1 CPT, are beyond the scope of this rule. DHS is in the process of
updating SEVIS and will continue to provide guidance and technical
updates to stakeholders to ensure compliance and to minimize confusion.
c. Economic Hardship and Special Student Relief
Comments: A commenter expressed support for DHS's proposal to
codify an automatic extension of employment authorization for F-1
students approved for SSR due to emergent circumstances when a timely
EOS application is pending (proposed 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii)). They
said this clarification aligns with longstanding SSR policy and
reasoned it would reduce avoidable lapses in lawful employment,
mitigate household financial shocks for students affected by crises,
and decrease unnecessary expedite requests and RFEs, thereby conserving
USCIS resources.
A commenter requested clarification around automatic extension of
work authorization for severe economic hardship, reasoning that this
authorization comes from USCIS. The commenter asked, if a student is
authorized until their I-20 program end date and then applies for an
EOS, whether an ``automatic'' extension of severe economic hardship
would mean that a student can work beyond the EAD end date without
requesting a new EAD card. They further asked what would happen if the
student has already been approved for a full year of severe economic
hardship authorization prior to the extension.
Another commenter expressed concern that the rule would exacerbate
financial and administrative burdens for economic hardship and SSR
beneficiaries needing to extend, as they would require additional
petitions to continue their authorizations. In line with other
commenters' remarks, they said that the 240-day extension does not
consider that Form I-539 petitions could have processing times between
12 and 18 months during peak periods, and this rule would in many cases
double the applications that USCIS would be receiving and adjudicating.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenter's support for DHS's
proposal to codify an automatic extension of employment authorization
for SSR due to emergent circumstances when a timely EOS application is
pending adjudication. DHS understands that some F-1 students may
encounter economic hardship during their nonimmigrant stay in the
United States. Students may, under certain circumstances, be eligible
for off-campus employment authorization if they demonstrate severe
economic hardship.\191\ As this relates to this rule, individuals with
a timely filed and pending EOS application are considered to be in an
authorized period of stay and may receive automatic extensions of
employment authorization under certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS based the 240-day timeframe on the period of stay authorized in
8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), which generally provides an automatic extension
of employment authorization of 240 days to aliens whose status has
expired but on whose behalf an application for an EOS was timely filed
through a Form I-539, and believes that adopting an already established
timeframe to which many nonimmigrants are accustomed, is reasonable and
will help minimize disruptions while balancing the need of DHS to
monitor and verify the activity of these aliens in the United States
and provide additional protections and oversight for the programs in
which these aliens engage.
DHS acknowledges this rule does result in additional costs and time
for some nonimmigrants. However, as discussed in this preamble and in
the NPRM, DHS believes that any burdens and costs imposed are
outweighed by the benefits of this rule, which creates a mechanism for
DHS to increase vetting, reduce overstays, and determine whether
nonimmigrants are complying with the conditions of their nonimmigrant
classification. The requirements imposed by this final rule provide the
U.S. Government more opportunities to review a nonimmigrant's records,
admissibility, and any possible indicators of fraud, abuse, or national
security concerns. Furthermore, fixed admission periods and filing an
EOS application with USCIS are requirements for most other
nonimmigrants who wish to enter or remain in the United States. DHS
believes that the EOS requirement will allow DHS to vet nonimmigrants
periodically to prevent and reduce issues of fraud, abuse, and national
security threats.
DHS also acknowledges that this rule will affect USCIS' workload.
As outlined within this final rule, USCIS is a fee funded agency and
may set fees to support the additional workload associated with the
adjudication of these cases. USCIS will account for the projected
volume of filings and level of effort necessary to adjudicate various
immigration benefit requests when conducting its biennial assessment of
fees.
d. Interaction With H-1B Status
Comments: Commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would
undermine or eliminate cap-gap protection for F-1 students
transitioning to H-1B status. Commenters stated that eliminating cap-
gap protection would hurt both students and employers. Another
commenter added that eliminating cap-gap would increase burden on DHS
staff to process extra extension of status requests. Commenters stated
that currently, F-1 status and work authorization are automatically
extended for students who timely file for a change of status to
[[Page 45037]]
H-1B, covering the gap until the H-1B start date. Commenters stated
that eliminating D/S would force cap-gap students to apply for an EOS
during this period. Commenters raised concerns about complications with
travel and re-entry, as the cap-gap date would not be covered under the
proposed rule. Commenters also expressed concern that the proposed rule
could cause legal consequences for students even for a brief lapse in
lawful presence, which would create brief lapses in lawful status.
Commenters remarked that the proposed rule lacks clarity regarding
its impact on cap-gap protections and fails to provide a mechanism for
cap-gap extensions. Commenters requested clarification about the
process and timeline for transitioning to H-1B status for students who
are beneficiaries of H-1B cap petitions. Specifically, commenters asked
whether the H-1B cap-gap extension process would change and whether
extensions of F-1 status and OPT employment authorization would still
be granted if the Form I-94 expired during the ``cap-gap extension''
period before H-1B status began.
Commenters urged DHS to preserve cap-gap status in the final rule
and continue automatically extending F-1 status and work authorization
for students who are beneficiaries of an H-1B cap petition. They
reasoned that maintaining cap-gap protection would ensure the retention
of top international talent while EOS requests are pending. Commenters
requested clarification in the final rule that cap-gap protections
would remain in place, noting that any ambiguity could cause disruption
for thousands of students and employers who rely on these protections
annually.
One commenter wrote that the extension period will overlap with
cap-subject H-1B filings and OPT requests, meaning USCIS will be at
their busiest when these extensions are submitted. This commenter wrote
that this would impact physician training.
Another commenter asked how the rule will interact with existing
statutes, such as the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First
Century Act of 2000 (AC21) portability for H-1Bs. Commenters expressed
concern that without similar protections for F nonimmigrants, students
could experience unnecessary gaps in employment authorization.
One commenter requested clarification on the new bridging mechanics
of status and OPT EAD to October 1st for students transitioning to H-
1B. One commenter asked what mechanism will be in place to prevent a
gap if a fixed admission period expires before a cap-gap transition,
whether the student will need to file an EOS application, whether USCIS
will adjudicate timely filed EOS applications in a way that preserves
status, whether there will be a maximum duration for employment
authorization during pending EOS or cap-gap, and if so, whether USCIS
will issue receipts or other evidence acceptable to employers for
continued employment during any cap-gap or pending EOS period.
Response: DHS understands the commenters' concerns regarding the H-
1B cap-gap provision and EAD extensions. Notably, this rule does not
make any significant changes to the automatic extension of employment
authorization regulations governing the H-1B cap-gap extension under
redesignated 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vii) and the EAD extensions for STEM OPT
under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(11)(i)(C) and 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(6)(iv). Under this
rule, eligible F-1 nonimmigrants will continue to benefit from the cap-
gap automatic EOS and any employment authorization, which extends until
April 1 of the fiscal year for which the H-1B status is being requested
or until the validity start date of the approved petition, whichever is
earlier. See redesignated 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vii). Similarly, eligible
F-1 nonimmigrants who have timely applied for the 24-month STEM OPT
extension will benefit from the automatic extension of employment until
the date of USCIS' written decision on the Form I-765, but not to
exceed 180 days. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(11)(i)(C) and 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(6)(iv).
6. Employment Authorization and Auto-Extension for Pending EOS/EAD:
Applications Under Sec. 214.2(j)(1)(v)-(viii), (ix) and 274.12(c)(5)
Comments: Commenters requested that DHS provide continuation of
employment and status for OPT/STEM OPT and J-1 researchers while timely
EOS or related adjudications are pending. One commenter wrote that J-1
scholars often extend short-term research stays, and that requiring
USCIS approval for each renewal could delay or disrupt these
collaborations.
Commenters expressed specific concern about the impact of the
proposed rule on nonimmigrants in J-1 and J-2 status, and work
authorization. Commenters expressed concerns that J-2 spouses would not
receive automatic employment authorization extensions. One commenter
asserted that disruption in J-2 employment status would be particularly
troublesome for dual income households. Commenters suggested that
automatic extensions should also be applied to J-2 EAD holders. One
commenter reasoned that many J-2 spouses are physicians and that
expiration of their work authorization could disrupt patient care.
Another commenter suggested that J-2 spouses remain authorized to work
until the adjudication process is complete. The commenter reasoned
that, specifically for teachers, if spouses lose their work
authorization, J-1 exchange teachers would be more likely to pursue H-
1B status, which would destabilize program attrition for dual language
classrooms. The commenter remarked that this policy revision aligns
with existing regulations under 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(v) and 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20).
Response: DHS acknowledges commenters' concerns about the
continuity of employment and status for J-1 researchers, and J-2
spouses while EOS or related adjudications are pending. Under the rule,
J-1 researchers may continue their program activities and employment
for up to 240 days after the expiration of their admission period,
provided their EOS is timely filed. However, at this time, DHS is not
extending automatic employment authorization to J-2 spouses while their
EOS is pending. J-2 spouses must have a valid EAD and period of
admission to work in the United States, and employment authorization is
not automatically extended during the pendency of an EOS application
because a J-2 spouse is only allowed to work to earn extra income for
the family's customary recreational and cultural activities and related
travel, among other things, but not to support the J-1 principal
alien.\192\ DHS believes the current approach is necessary to maintain
program integrity and ensure proper vetting of all applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. F Nonimmigrants
1. Changes in Educational Objectives, School Transfers, Training
Limits, Program Duration
a. Definition of Educational Level and Lifetime Limits
Comments: Many commenters expressed concern that the term
``educational level'' was not sufficiently defined or clarified in the
proposed rule. These commenters remarked that DHS did not provide a
clear hierarchy of educational levels, leaving questions about how
different types of degrees would be classified. Commenters requested
clarification on how various degrees would be ranked, including whether
a Juris Doctor (JD) would be
[[Page 45038]]
considered equivalent to, higher than, or lower than a master's degree
(such as LLM), Ph.D., or MD; whether post-master's certificates would
be considered equivalent to, higher than, or lower than a master's
degree; and how stackable credentials would be classified. Another
commenter expressed confusion on definitions for undergraduate and
graduate level training in medical education. Commenters remarked that
proposed rule artificially separates ``program extension'' from
``status extension,'' even though current regulations already require
justification and documentation for program extensions through DSOs and
ROs.
Commenters also raised concerns about whether the proposed rule
could be interpreted as a lifetime limit on pursuing programs at the
same or lower level, or if it would only apply to a student's current
SEVIS record. Commenters remarked that a lifetime limit is unjustified,
reasoning that there are many situations where another degree or
certificate at the same or lower level would make academic or
professional sense.
Response: DHS appreciates these comments. DHS generally relies on
NCES' definition of educational levels, which provides a structure for
determining whether a nonimmigrant student's program of study reflects
upward academic progression. The list of educational levels that
schools use to update their Form I-17, ``Petition for Approval of
School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant student,'' is available to the
public.\193\ This list contains the following educational levels: 1.
Primary and Secondary Education; 2. ELT; 3. Post-secondary
Certificates/Non-Degree; 4. Associate; 5. Bachelor; 6. Master; 7.
Doctorate. DHS anticipates providing guidance on educational levels to
clarify how it utilizes the NCES definitions of education levels to
ensure consistency across components, with ED, and by DSOs. DHS
recommends that for specific student circumstances, the aliens contact
their DSO for more information about particular programs including
medical education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ See DHS, Form I-17 Petition Update (last updated June 2,
2025), https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/sevis-help-hub/school-records/school-certification/update-school-information/form-i-17-petition-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS acknowledges commenters concerns that there may be instances
where a student desires to enroll in a lower educational level or
repeat the same level. The policy in this rule prevents F-1 students
who have completed a program at one educational level from starting
another program at the same or a lower level (e.g., someone who
finished a bachelor's degree cannot start another bachelor's degree or
an associate degree as an F-1 student). This is to prevent F-1 students
from using the U.S. educational system as a means to unnecessarily (or
under false pretenses) prolong their stay in this country.
Additionally, the limits of study at the same or lower educational
levels will be applied prospectively. Any programs completed prior to
the effective date of the rule will not be counted towards the limits.
DHS has therefore clarified in the final rule that this limitation of
study at the same or lower educational levels applies only to programs
that are completed after the effective date. See 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(ii)(C).
DHS also acknowledges that a program extension is not the same as a
status extension and reiterates that aliens must follow applicable
requirements for both.
b. ELT Limits and Program Duration
Comments: Commenters expressed opposition to the proposed 24-month
cap on ELT programs, stating it fails to account for the individualized
nature of language training and fails to account for students' learning
goals, with most ELT students enrolling for less than one academic year
(averaging 12.8 weeks in 2024). Commenters explained that language
learning depends on numerous variables including starting proficiency
level, native language, age, prior education, and individual aptitude.
One commenter submitted a detailed comment explaining how the proposed
rule would significantly and disproportionately disrupt ELT students
and the industry. They explained that the proposed rule limiting ELT to
24-months does not consider the students' baseline English proficiency
at the beginning of the ELT program as well as the differing speeds of
language progression and cited to research showing that working
communication proficiency may take more than two years.
Commenters expressed particular concern about a potential lifetime
limit, noting that language skills can regress over time, and many
students return, legitimately, for additional English study years later
for new or renewed professional, academic, or personal reasons. A
commenter stated that a potential 24-month lifetime limit on ESL,
restrictions on transfers, and a ban on reverse matriculation would be
difficult to monitor and enforce at the programmatic level since
schools would need to collect additional information prior to I-20
issuance.
Commenters recommended maintaining the current framework, stating
that it more accurately reflects the flexible nature of ELT
acquisition, and allows students to remain for the full length of their
program as indicated on their Form I-20. Commenters alternatively
recommend extending the maximum admission period to lengths such as 36
or 48 months, instead of 24 months. Another commenter recommended that
the limitation on language studies should be extended when a
nonimmigrant student is pursuing Testing of English in Foreign Language
studies.
Additionally, the commenters noted that some nonimmigrant students
may require additional time due to illness, disability, family
emergencies, or simply because they began at beginner level. Commenters
expressed concern that the proposed fixed admission period is arbitrary
and lacks empirical support. Commenters expressed particular concern
about the impact the proposed changes would have on pathway programs
and conditional admission models that integrate intensive English
language study with academic coursework. Commenters noted that ELT
programs typically last less than a full academic year and serve as
bridges to degree programs.
Commenters cited data from Open Doors, indicating that 28 percent
of language training nonimmigrant students intend to pursue degree
programs in the United States following the completion of the
nonimmigrant student's ESL program. One commenter referenced the 2024
Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange which noted
that 67,924 foreign students participated in intensive ELT during the
year, with 50 percent of students enrolled at programs linked to U.S.
colleges and universities; 42 percent of those students planned to
pursue a degree after their training, arguing that the rule could
hamper enrollment and finances for ELT institutions if the path to a
graduate program is uncertain.\194\ Commenters also referenced research
distinguishing between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills,
typically achieved in 1 to 2 years, and the more advanced Cognitive
Academic Language Proficiency, which can require 5 to 7 years of
intensive study. Both approaches would be impacted by the proposed
fixed period of admission. Commenters noted that the Cambridge study
cited in the proposed rule
[[Page 45039]]
measures basic proficiency rather than sophisticated academic
communication skills needed to succeed at a post-secondary level.
Commenters also noted that the Foreign Service Institute's research
contradicts the proposed timeframe, as the Institute estimates that
approximately 2,200 hours (equivalent to more than 3 years) are needed
for native speakers of languages like Chinese, Korean, Arabic, or
Japanese to reach English speaking proficiency. Commenters stated that
ELT represents a distinct educational objective rather than an
education level, with no nationally recognized completion standard.
Commenters further stated that the proposed rule conflicts with
established accreditation standards. Commenters also requested
clarification on whether the proposed 24-month aggregate cap applies
per program, per uninterrupted F-1 stay, or as a lifetime limit, with
some commenters stating that this creates confusion and potential risk
for students and institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ The commenter did not elaborate on their citation to the
2024 Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, one commenter recommended that the ESL cap be
reduced to 12 months as opposed to 24 months, stating that 12 months is
more than enough time for an F nonimmigrant to learn English.
Response: DHS appreciates the comments but notes that any programs
completed prior to the effective date of the rule will not be counted
towards the limits for ELT or other programs. In addition, the lifetime
limit of 24 months for ELT will be applied prospectively. This
timeframe coincides with the amount needed to gain the highest level of
English proficiency under the Cambridge English Exam.\195\ DHS expects
this rule will affect relatively few ELT students and believes the 24-
month cap is appropriate for program integrity and oversight. In
addition, F-1 nonimmigrants pursuing ELT who are subject to the
transition period (F-1 students admitted for D/S and present in the
United States on the effective date of the final rule) may continue
their program of study until the program end date, not to exceed 4
years. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ According to Cambridge English, it takes approximately
1,000 to 1,200 hours to achieve the highest level of English
proficiency from being a beginner of English. This is based on the
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), which is an
international standard for describing language ability. See
Cambridge English, Guided Learning Hours (Dec. 17, 2025), https://support.cambridgeenglish.org/hc/en-gb/articles/202838506-Guided-learning-hours. Given that an academic year is 9 months, it would
take the average F-1 student less than 18 months (or less than 24
months to include summer breaks and annual vacations) to achieve
advanced English proficiency through guided instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS appreciates the commenters' concerns about English training
programs; however, an aggregate of 24 months of ELT will be applied to
all students to prevent abuse of the F-1 program. Most ELT students
were enrolled in programs shorter than 2 years, as reflected by data
provided in the NPRM preamble.\196\ DHS recognizes commenters' reports
that more advanced language proficiency requires additional years of
study, or that some ELT students may require more than 2 years to
obtain English language proficiency. To the extent a nonimmigrant
wanted to continue with ELT in the United States after the 24-month cap
was completed, they can do so while admitted for other reasons. For
example, an F nonimmigrant admitted for programs other than ELT are not
precluded from continuing ELT during their stay in the United States.
Any programs completed prior to the effective date of the final rule
will not count towards a foreign student's limits for ELT or programs
of study at the same or lower educational levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ See 90 FR at 42087 and Cambridge English, supra note 195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS is concerned about vulnerabilities, fraud, and abuse in the
nonimmigrant student classification, but especially in the ELT
programs. The two years for standalone ELT schools/programs will be
calculated as an aggregate of 24 months from the student's program
start date (plus a 30-day period for departure). Students who encounter
extenuating circumstances such as illness, disability, or other
emergencies during their studies, will still be limited to the 24-month
admission period. Students may depart and reenter the United States to
resume studies (such as for a school break) but will not receive
additional admission time to account for the time spent outside of the
country.
DHS recognizes commenters concerns about the impact the proposed
changes would have on pathway programs and conditional admission models
that integrate intensive English language study with academic
coursework. An F-1 student who has been admitted to a degree program
that integrates completion of a pathway program at the same institution
of higher learning will be granted a period of admission that includes
completion of both programs of study, up to a maximum of four years.
For example, if a student has been admitted to a bachelor's degree
program but needs to first complete a six-month pathway program at the
same school, DHS will grant the student a period of admission that
includes the time allotted to complete both the pathway and bachelor's
programs, up to a maximum of four years. If more time is needed to
complete the degree program, then the student will need to apply for an
EOS. This ensures that bona fide students engaged in such pathway
programs are able to request an EOS with USCIS to stay in the United
States and continue their studies, reflecting a clear upward academic
progression. Additionally, students in pathway programs who encounter
extenuating circumstances prior to program completion, such as illness,
disability, or other emergency, may also cite such reasons when
applying for an EOS. Per existing regulations at 8 CFR 214.3(k), DSOs
are prohibited from issuing Forms I-20 based on conditional admission
and should not be issuing Forms I-20 for students who have not met all
admission requirements for the programs they are seeking to attend.
DHS recognizes the importance of supporting legitimate educational
pathways and acknowledges the need for flexibility in certain
circumstances, such as recognized bona fide educational tracks,
graduate program specializations, and market-driven licensure
requirements. DHS will provide updated guidance to clarify the
application of these restrictions, particularly for graduate programs
and specialized educational pathways.
As far as the commenters' concerns that these new rules will cause
difficulty for monitoring, SEVIS is being updated to manage all the new
requirements from this rule. DHS will also be providing training to
stakeholders and broadcast messages with reminders, so DHS is confident
that the transition to this new rule will provide the enhanced
monitoring needed to effectuate this rule.
Finally, DHS disagrees with the commenters that say this rule
conflicts with established accreditation standards. The commenters are
mistaken when they think that accredited programs will need to be
shortened to fit the 4-year admission period. That is untrue. If the
program has been accredited as a 5-year program, the I-20 or DS-2019
will state the full program length. The student will need to apply for
an EOS with USCIS prior to the expiration of his or her currently
authorized period of stay \197\ using the same I-20 or DS-2019 used to
enter the country and may continue to study while the application is
pending. If the student has not committed any crimes
[[Page 45040]]
or otherwise violated his or her status, then the EOS should be granted
and the program of study completed as accredited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ With respect to the earliest filing date for a Form I-539,
there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain date
ahead of expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Impact on K-12 Students and 4-Year Limit
Comments: Several commenters stated that the impact of the proposed
rule on K-12 students would be significant, noting that the proposed
rule focuses on post-secondary education with little acknowledgment of
the impact on K-12 nonimmigrant students who also utilize the F-1 visa.
A commenter noted that F-1 visas are not just for post-secondary
education, and that in 2024, there were over 54,000 foreign students in
K-12 schools. Commenters requested exceptions to the 4-year limit for
students enrolled as K-12 students, particularly those who want to
enter in 7th or 8th grade and stay until they graduate high school. A
commenter stated that many high school campers choose to apply and
attend their academy the following fall and requiring a formal EOS for
a camper enrolled for only 4 to 6 weeks prior to the academy transfer
would be an unnecessary and unreasonable burden.
Response: Regarding the 4-year limit and the K-12 population, the
rule provides that SEVP-certified private schools for grades K-12 may
issue Forms I-20 for up to grade 12, requiring an application for an
EOS only every four years if the student never travels abroad during
that time. If the student travels abroad, the stay will be extended for
a four-year maximum every time the grade school student travels abroad.
This may not work for the camper scenario because they will most likely
need a new I-20 to indicate the new study program; however, F-1
students are allowed to begin studies while an EOS application is
pending.
DHS does not believe this rule will cause undue burden to students
or schools. DHS is not changing the fundamental requirements to qualify
for these nonimmigrant statuses; it is instead changing the length of
time that an individual may lawfully remain in the United States in F
or J status without filing an EOS. Further, as is the case for the
fixed period of admission policy more generally, a fixed date of
admission simply places these nonimmigrants in the same position as
most other nonimmigrants who are temporarily in the United States. They
will still be able to continue to pursue their full course of study or
exchange program; however, if they need additional time in F or J
status, the burden will now be on them to request authorization
directly from DHS and establish eligibility to extend their period of
stay in such status, whereas previously they obtained an extension of
lawful status in conjunction with a program extension through a DSO or
RO. DHS does recognize it is imposing limits to F-1 undergraduate
students on transferring or changing educational objectives within the
first academic year of a program of study, unless an exception is
authorized by SEVP for extenuating circumstances. This will help to
combat fraud and abuse in this visa category. DHS also recognizes F-1
students may need to change programs or educational objectives to
complete elementary or secondary education. DHS has therefore clarified
in the final rule that a student needing to change schools to complete
elementary or secondary education may be considered an extenuating
circumstance. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A).
d. Same-Level or Lower-Level Degree Enrollment
Comments: Commenters stated that limits to same and lower-level
degree enrollment will not meet the needs of students. Commenters
emphasized that pursuing programs at the same or lower level is common
practice, particularly for students in professional programs seeking to
specialize in new subject matter. Commenters urged DHS to rescind the
rule, stating it would unnecessarily restrict students from adjusting
their studies and pursuing diverse programs, especially in STEM jobs,
and would also contribute to a chilling and coercive work atmosphere,
reasoning that educational mobility is an important tool to improve
working conditions for all. Comments stated that the rule limits
nonimmigrant students' ability to diversify their resumes, making them
less competitive in the global marketplace, and disproportionately
impacting students from developing countries who may need to retrain or
requalify in new disciplines due to evolving labor market demands.
Along these lines, commenters noted that the rule restricting
multiple degrees imposes difficulties for nonimmigrants in fields that
involve interdisciplinary components of research and study. Commenters
noted that the United States is experiencing ongoing workforce
shortages in STEM, especially in areas requiring interdisciplinary
expertise gained through multiple academic programs, including advanced
manufacturing and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Commenters reiterated that F visa students may have legitimate
reasons for pursuing multiple degrees at the same level, including
specialization, professional pivoting, gaining of interdisciplinary
skills, meeting licensing requirements, fulfilling prerequisites for
graduate study, career advancement, and developing specialized
skillsets. In that regard, a commenter proposed regulatory changes
under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(C) to include that ``[s]tudents may pursue
a second degree at the same level if in a different field or
institution.'' Similarly, another commenter suggested adding that
``[s]ame-level prohibition applies only to identical CIP codes, not
substantially different disciplines'' under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(C).
One commenter explained that nursing, dental hygiene, diagnostic
medical sonography, and veterinary technology programs require students
to first complete prerequisites and then often wait one to two years
before program admission. Another commenter stated community colleges
provide a critical steppingstone for students refining their career
goals and the limit on transfers between levels of study would
disproportionately affect students who discover new academic interests
after completing an undergraduate program.
Similarly, commenters described reasons students may pursue lower-
level degrees, such as the need to complete certificate programs in
specialized fields or enrollment in community college courses to
develop specific academic skills or for financial reasons.
A commenter added that DHS failed to provide a reasonable
explanation as to why changing programs and pursuing consecutive
degrees is impermissible or non-compliant. Similarly, another commenter
stated that the rule's restrictions on second master's degrees,
limitations on transferring schools, or changing majors, and rigid time
caps on student status' do not directly advance the goal of preventing
visa abuse or ensuring compliance.
Response: Under the new requirements, any undergraduate student who
has enrolled in a program at one educational level, but who has not
completed that program, is authorized to change to another program at
the same educational level or transfer to another school after
completion of one academic year.\198\ DHS believes this will prevent
aliens from remaining in the United States for lengthy periods of time
in F-1 student status, while also accommodating the legitimate academic
activities of bona fide students that are not following the typical
upward
[[Page 45041]]
progression. This includes a desire to pursue a different field of
study or to pursue more specialized studies in their established
programs. The limits on specific programs at the same or lower
educational levels will be applied prospectively, allowing students who
began their studies under the previous regulatory scheme to continue
their program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS understands that there are legitimate cases of students gaining
knowledge at a lower or the same educational level. However, DHS
believes that most students follow an upward trajectory. For that
reason, any undergraduate-level student who has enrolled in a program
at one educational level is authorized to change to another program at
the same educational level or transfer to another school only after
completion of one academic year.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS is also restricting school transfers and changes of educational
objectives within an undergraduate student's first academic year of a
program of study, unless an exception is authorized by DHS, and
prohibiting F-1 students in a graduate level program of study from
changing educational objectives or transferring at any point during
their program of study, unless SEVP authorizes an exception for the
transfer due to extenuating circumstances.\200\ DHS believes these
changes will accommodate the legitimate academic activities of bona
fide students, such as a desire to pursue a different field of study or
more specialized studies in their current field at the undergraduate
level, while maintaining the integrity of graduate level programs to
avoid school and major switching that takes places away for aspiring
graduate students. These changes will also provide DHS with flexibility
to grant exceptions for extenuating circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A) and new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(8)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS believes this will encourage F-1 students to complete the
programs of study for which they were admitted to the United States and
to only pursue additional programs of study that demonstrate an upward
progression in degree levels, which is expected from a qualified bona
fide student who is coming to the United States temporarily and solely
to pursue a course of study.
DHS disagrees with the commenters assertion that DHS has failed to
provide a reasoned explanation regarding changing programs and the
permissibility of pursuing consecutive degrees. In the NPRM, DHS
provided a reasoned explanation balancing the logical progression to a
higher educational level as the traditional trajectory for higher
education with the necessity to address and deter fraud, exploitation,
and abuse in connection with the duration of stay framework.\201\
Continuing to allow nonimmigrants to complete one program, then move on
to another, or move to a lower education level raises serious concerns
that the intent is not to pursue a full course of study but rather to
circumvent the U.S. immigration system and prolong their stay in the
U.S. under the guise of pursuing education. As such, these restrictions
do advance the goal of preventing visa fraud and abuse, enhancing
national security, and ensuring program integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ See 90 FR at 42087-89 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS recognizes commenters' concerns about the restrictions effect
for those pursuing multiple degrees, including the concern that this
will impose difficulties for nonimmigrants in fields that involve
interdisciplinary components of research and study. Students will be
able to continue learning at all academic levels while also making
progress in the degree program for which they have been issued a Form
I-20, thereby mitigating these effects and ensuring students continue
to make upward progress on their studies in the United States while in
the country as an F nonimmigrant. However, this rule does not prevent
students who need double majors to achieve their goals from planning
ahead and enrolling in both at the same time. For example, nothing in
this rule prevents someone from doing a J.D./M.B.A. program at one
institution with one I-20 indicating the program end date that accounts
for the longer time it takes to complete the double major.
DHS also recognizes commenters' concerns about programs which
require the completion of prerequisites, then waiting a year or more
before program admission. During this gap, if a student no longer
qualifies for their current nonimmigrant visa category (for example, if
they are no longer enrolled full-time in a qualifying course of study),
they cannot remain in the United States. This requirement is the same
as currently required under D/S. In such cases, the students need to
depart the country and apply for a new visa once they are eligible for
admission to the new program. DHS encourages students to plan ahead and
consult with their DSO or an immigration advisor to understand their
options and maintain compliance with U.S. immigration regulations.
e. Program Changes for Undergraduate Students
Comments: Commenters pointed out that there are many academic
programs and educational pathways. Commenters emphasized that the
restrictions would particularly affect dual, interdisciplinary, and
accelerated degree programs, noting that at one institution
approximately 20 percent of foreign students graduated with dual
majors. Commenters expressed concern that the rule would disrupt
innovative collaborative programs between institutions, such as 2+2-
degree programs through which students complete 2 years at a community
college before transferring to a four-year institution. Commenters
stated imposing EOS requirements would undermine the seamless
transition promised by these educational packages and discourage
resource-pooling programs.
Commenters stated that changes for undergraduate students were
unfair and unrealistic. A majority of commenters expressed opposition
to the prohibition on F-1 undergraduate students changing programs or
educational objectives within their first year of study. Commenters
expressed the restriction is overly limiting and lacks sufficient
justification, particularly since similar restrictions do not apply to
U.S. students. Commenters remarked that changing majors is a common
practice among all undergraduates, with studies indicating
approximately 80 percent of students change majors at least once, often
increasing their likelihood of graduating. Along these lines, some
commented that nursing students who don't meet the GPA requirements
must change majors and indicated that the proposed restrictions on
changing majors were not realistic.
Commenters described how the U.S. higher education system is
uniquely designed to allow students to explore different fields through
general education requirements before selecting a major. Commenters
noted the first year typically consists of exploratory coursework that
helps students discover interests across interdisciplinary fields. Many
commenters pointed out that foreign students face additional challenges
when selecting institutions, as they often must choose schools without
having visited campuses or met faculty, making it unreasonable to limit
them to their initial choice if it proves to be a poor fit.
Commenters identified numerous reasons why students might need to
legitimately change programs or schools before completing their first
academic
[[Page 45042]]
year, including discovery of new academic interests, poor academic fit,
financial constraints, family circumstances, safety concerns,
discriminatory treatment, school closures, program eliminations, and
the need for additional language training. Commenters also expressed
concern that the transfer restriction would particularly impact English
language programs and community colleges, potentially increasing costs
and time to degree completion. Clarification was sought about when
transfers would be allowed for F-1 students.
Response: Undergraduate students seeking to transfer to another
school or change their educational objectives during their first year
of study still retain flexibility in having their cases reviewed by
DHS, which may then authorize the change in educational objective or
school transfer if an exception is warranted. Transfers to other
schools or changing majors after the first year of study is allowed at
the undergraduate level, including for students who do not meet certain
requirements to progress within their program and change majors. Any
graduate student that fails out of the program will need to return
home.
This particular change seeks to address significant costs incurred
by universities when working with potential F-1 students who then
transfer to less expensive schools upon arrival in the United States.
This provision will provide more stability in the admission process and
still provides the students with the ability to explore coursework and
majors during the first year. Most undergraduate students take similar
classes in their first year; therefore, the majority of the commenters'
objections about changing degrees in the first year are not a concern
under this new framework.
f. Program Changes for Graduate Students
Comments: Commenters stated that changes to graduate programs do
not account for actual experiences of students. The majority of
commenters expressed opposition to the proposed rule's prohibition on
F-1 graduate students changing programs or educational objectives
during their program of study. Commenters expressed particular concern
about the impact on Ph.D. students, remarking that the proposed
restrictions demonstrate a lack of understanding about the nature of
graduate education, which often involves interdisciplinary work and
evolving research interests.
Commenters stated that the rule would disrupt common practices in
graduate education, including master's students being promoted to Ph.D.
programs midway through their studies, Ph.D. students receiving
master's degrees enroute to their doctorate, and students pursuing dual
degrees at the graduate level. Another commenter expressed the proposed
rule would eliminate the ``master-out'' option for Ph.D. students who
are awarded a master's degree when they cannot finish, and harm
``academic mobility'' for second master's degrees and master's-out
pathways. Commenters clarified that graduate school, particularly at
the doctoral level, is not a fixed, linear path, and intellectual
discovery often leads students to pivot to related fields. Commenters
stated that the rule would punish academic growth by causing students
to abandon years of work rather than transition programs. Many
commenters expressed concern with the proposed rule's different
provisions for graduate students compared to undergraduate students,
noting that the proposed rule lacks explanation or rationale for these
distinctions. One commenter reported extenuating and uncontrollable
circumstances may cause a graduate student to transfer programs or
institutions, while another commenter thought the proposed rule would
punish students for issues beyond their control by locking students
into a major their first year and by requiring graduate students to
remain in their program. Another commenter stated that the proposed
rule would make Ph.D. enrollment riskier and would leave open teaching
assistant and research positions that are dependent on foreign
students.
Commenters provided numerous reasons why graduate students might
need to change programs, including refined research direction, changes
in advisors, moves from master's to doctoral programs, suggestions from
faculty members, personal or academic circumstances, and changes in
research funding. Commenters emphasized the critical relationship
between graduate students and their faculty advisors, explaining that
students often choose specific institutions because of faculty members
whose research aligns with their interests, reasoning that when faculty
members relocate to another university, graduate students may need to
transfer to continue working with their chosen mentors and maintain
access to specialized research facilities. Commenters noted that
research funding is often tied to specific faculty members, requiring
students to follow their advisors to maintain financial support.
Commenters urged DHS to reconsider its restrictions on graduate
students seeking to transfer or change educational objectives, with
specific requests to allow Ph.D. students the option to transfer,
particularly in cases involving academic or financial necessity. If DHS
proceeds with finalizing the rule, commenters suggested establishing
exceptions, such as allowing students to transfer to continue
mentorship with their advisor, and proposed simplifying procedures for
program extensions and transfers, especially at the graduate level.
Commenters asked what happens after the 240-day authorized stay ends
while an application is pending, the earliest filing date for
applications, and how Ph.D. students whose programs exceed four years
would justify extensions.
Commenters noted the rule could prevent individuals who completed a
Ph.D. from later enrolling in a U.S. MD program or vice versa, despite
these degrees preparing students for distinct career paths. Commenters
expressed concern about uncertainty for medical residents on F-1 visas
regarding whether residency would be considered a higher education
level than medical school, potential barriers to changing disciplines
during residency, and disruptions to transitions between PharmD
programs or movement from PharmD to research-focused graduate programs.
Relatedly, a few commenters noted that the changes would prohibit
students from pursuing a second master's degree which could hamper
their ability to shift careers and add interdisciplinary training. One
commenter pursuing a second STEM master's degree also expressed concern
for the uncertainty surrounding using OPT after a second master's
degree and stated that this might direct students away from the United
States. Another commenter spoke about how the inability to pursue a
second master's degree may hamper a student from ``applied, industry-
ready training.''
Response: DHS acknowledges that students may seek to engage in
programs simultaneously at a lower level or obtain multiple degrees, at
differing levels, throughout the course of their time in the United
States. Students will be able to continue earning such credentials
while also making progress in the degree program for which they have
been issued a Form I-20. For example, a student issued a Form I-20 for
a Ph.D. program as their primary academic objective could obtain a
master's degree incidental to
[[Page 45043]]
status while progressing toward completion of the Ph.D. program.
DHS generally relies on NCES' definition of educational levels,
which provides a structure for determining whether a nonimmigrant
student's program of study reflects upward academic progression. The
list of educational levels that schools use to update their Form I-17,
``Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant
student,'' is available at https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/sevis-help-hub/school-records/school-certification/form-i-17-listing-of-available-degrees. This list contains the following educational levels: 1.
Primary and Secondary Education; 2. ELT; 3. Post-secondary
Certificates/Non-Degree; 4. Associate; 5. Bachelor; 6. Master; 7.
Doctorate. DHS may provide updated guidance on educational levels to
ensure consistency across components and with ED.
DHS appreciates commenters' concerns about the rule's effect on
academic growth of students. DHS recognizes academic pathways can be
complex and that students may pursue multiple degrees or transition
programs, including from undergraduate to graduate studies. The
Department does not intend to discourage academic advancement or
require students to abandon years of work.
DHS also recognizes the different approaches for undergraduate
students and graduate students. This rule aims to balance program
integrity and national security with the need to support legitimate
educational pursuits. DHS believes differing approaches for
undergraduate and graduate students are appropriate given the
difference in the general ages of the students, a graduate student's
previous opportunities to explore academic interests prior to entering
graduate school, and a focus on more specific degree programs at the
graduate level. DHS maintains it is appropriate to prohibit an F-1
student at the graduate degree level or above from changing educational
objectives at any point during their program of study for the reasons
outlined above. However, DHS recognizes that extenuating circumstances,
such as a school closure or a school's prolonged inability to hold in-
person classes due to a natural disaster, may prevent a graduate
student from being able to continue their studies unless the student
transfers to another SEVP-certified institution. The NPRM proposed
prohibiting an F-1 student at the graduate level from transferring,
without exception. DHS agrees with commenters that these situations may
be outside the students' control and, taking this into consideration,
DHS has amended the regulatory text to allow SEVP to authorize an
exception to this transfer prohibition in extenuating circumstances.
See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A), 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(i)(C), and 8 CFR
214.2(f)(8)(i)(D). For the purposes of this rule, ``extenuating
circumstances'' for a transfer are rare, exceptional events beyond the
control of the school and the affected students that prevent an SEVP-
certified school from continuing to provide the student's approved
course of study, such as a permanent or extended school closure, a
school merger that eliminates the student's program, a loss of
necessary authorization for the school to enroll F-1 students, or the
school's prolonged inability to deliver required instruction due to a
natural disaster or comparable emergency. In such circumstances, SEVP
may, in its discretion and in coordination with the impacted SEVP-
certified school or schools, permit the transfer of student records to
another SEVP-certified school so that the student may continue, to the
extent practicable, in the same educational objective. This exception
is narrow, is intended only to preserve continuity of study in
emergency situations, does not create an entitlement to transfer, and
does not otherwise authorize an F-1 student to change educational
objectives. Affected students generally will access this exception
through their DSOs, as SEVP becomes aware of qualifying extenuating
circumstances through notifications from SEVP-certified schools and
SEVP's existing outreach to schools during such events.
Regarding the claim that the rule will make Ph.D. enrollment
riskier and result in unfilled teaching assistant and research
positions, DHS does not intend for this rule to significantly affect
these populations since foreign students may still study, teach, and
research in the United States under this fixed period of admission
framework. They may also apply for an EOS if they want to request an
extension of their admission period and shouldn't experience any
disruptions if they apply as early as possible (180 days) before the
expiration of their current stay. Additionally, assistantships are
awarded based on student need and should not be the primary motivation
in enrolling foreign students.
Regarding comments on the relationship between graduate students
and their faculty advisors and students choosing institutions based on
faculty member's research, such students should consider applying for
J-1 visas to better align their goals with the appropriate nonimmigrant
status. DHS notes that J-1 categories include research scholars and
college and university students, and requirements for transferring
programs for J-1 students are governed by DoS regulations. See 22 CFR
62.20, 62.23, 62.42.
DHS also acknowledges the request for simplified procedures for
program extensions and transfers. DHS declines to alter the current
procedures, as they are necessary for program integrity and national
security. DHS will, however, evaluate needs for guidance to assist in
the transition and application of these new rules and will provide this
guidance to stakeholders as needed.
DHS recognizes commenters' request for clarification about what
happens after the 240-days. The 240-day period offers certain F
nonimmigrants the ability to continue with authorized employment for
this time period while their EOS is pending. If the EOS takes longer
than 240 days to adjudicate, the F nonimmigrant would need to stop
authorized employment, but they can remain in the United States, can
continue their full course of study, and are considered to be in a
period of authorized stay during that period.
g. Delay and Suspension of Change in Educational Objectives
Comment: Commenters discussed several technical and implementation
concerns regarding the proposed limitations on program changes and
transfers. A commenter expressed concern that the discretionary
provision in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(E) may be exploited by future
administrations. Other commenters opined DHS should not codify a
regulation which cannot be implemented. Another commenter opined the
delay or suspension of the educational objectives provision could
create confusion and arbitrary outcomes. Similarly, a commenter thought
8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(E) would cause students, schools, and employers
unnecessary uncertainty and resulting harm.
Response: DHS recognizes that this rule requires updates to SEVIS
and other systems and it has been planning for these changes. The
language proposed in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(E) would provide DHS
authority to delay or suspend implementation of the provisions relating
to a change in educational objectives, outlined in 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A) through (C), via announcement in the Federal
Register and SEVP's website. DHS has given the comments on this
provision considerable thought and agrees that this provision, as
proposed, could cause unnecessary confusion and uncertainty
[[Page 45044]]
in the future. DHS does not identify an indefinite need to suspend or
delay the implementation of 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(A) through (C) and
therefore, DHS has decided to amend 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(E) to limit the
agencies' ability to delay or suspend implementation to two years from
the effective date of this final rule.
2. Preparation for Departure
a. Support for Reducing the F-1 Departure Period From 60 to 30 Days
Comments: A few commenters expressed support to reduce the F-1 visa
departure period from 60 days to 30 days. One commenter stated the 60-
day departure period was misaligned with enforcement objectives and
increased the risk of visa overstays. This commenter referenced DHS
reports showing above-average overstay rates in the student and
exchange visitor visa categories. Another commenter stated that
shortening the departure period would limit the risk of unauthorized
employment or ``loitering'' after the lawful stay has ended.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' support for this rule and
agrees that reducing the departure period will reduce overstays,
strengthen oversight, and yield additional benefits to enhance the U.S.
immigration system. This rule establishes an effective mechanism to
periodically and directly assess whether nonimmigrants in F, J, and I
status are complying with the conditions of their nonimmigrant
classifications and U.S. immigration laws, and to obtain timely and
accurate information about the activities these aliens have engaged in
and plan to engage in during their temporary stay in the United States.
DHS believes that this rule will encourage aliens to maintain lawful
status and reduce instances in which aliens in F, J, and I nonimmigrant
status unlawfully remain in the United States after their program,
practical training, or activities or assignments end.
b. Opposition to Reducing the F-1 Departure Period From 60 to 30 Days
Comments: Most commenters expressed opposition to reducing the F-1
post-completion departure period from 60 to 30 days for many reasons
because this timeframe serves as a critical buffer for foreign students
in transitioning without risking life-changing immigration penalties
for minor issues at no fault of the alien before going back to their
country. For example, commenters said delayed transcripts, job offers,
or cancelled or delayed flights could trigger unlawful presence which
could lead to bans from re-entering the U.S. Commenters also remarked
that DHS presented no data suggesting the current 60-day period poses
national security issues or compromises program integrity. As one
commenter stated, there is no evidence offered that the extra 30 days
are somehow used to threaten national security, avoid authorities, or
otherwise abuse the F-1 visas. Another commenter stated that the
shortening of the grace period from 60 to 30 days was unnecessary and
counterproductive to ensure an orderly completion of stay.
Commenters stated that 30 days was insufficient for foreign
students to complete post-graduation logistics such as terminating
housing leases, selling belongings, closing financial accounts,
arranging shipping, and making travel arrangements. Commenters added
that these unresolved logistical and financial matters often burden
local communities when students cannot efficiently conclude their
affairs. In addition, commenters state a shortened 30-day departure
period amid USCIS processing delays could lead to an increase in
inadvertent overstays and unlawful presence, potentially exposing
students to serious immigration consequences including reentry bans.
Commenters cited a negative impact on academic institutions,
including an increased administrative burden for schools and DSOs, who
would face greater pressure to process requests quickly in the 30-day
grace period during already busy periods, potentially leading to higher
error rates.
One commenter stated the shortened departure period will negatively
impact foreign students in transition to other institutions or
educational levels. Regarding academic transitions, a commenter stated
that many institutions require more than 30 days to post final grades,
verify program completion, or issue diplomas, making the proposed
timeframe impractical for students needing to secure admission to new
programs. Other commenters said that abruptly changing baselines
disrupts settled expectations and will deter prospective students from
choosing U.S. programs, which will in turn harm U.S. economic
competitiveness.
Commenters identified negative effects of the shortened departure
period on students' eligibility for the OPT program, including those in
STEM programs. A commenter stated that the current 60-day departure
period provides essential flexibility for students to select OPT
program start dates that align with job search efforts and USCIS
processing times and added that shortening this window would constrain
students' ability to secure suitable employment and potentially
increase the risk of exceeding unemployment limits. One commenter
stated that in the 2023-2024 academic year, approximately 242,800
foreign students participated in OPT, a record high. Commenters also
reported foreign students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy
and supported 378,000 jobs in the same period. Research has shown that
OPT participants directly enhance innovation; for instance, an
additional 10 OPT participants in a region is correlated with 5 more
patents filed. By reducing the grace period, the commenter stated that
DHS risks making the OPT program essentially unworkable, leaving
graduates without enough time to transition into jobs. In effect, OPT
could become nominal but not functional, depriving both students and
the U.S. economy of its benefits. Commenters stated that USCIS
processing delays combined with the shortened departure period could
result in students losing portions of their OPT eligibility, which
ultimately discourages participation in the program and negatively
affects the U.S. workforce and economy. Commenters also stated broader
economic concerns, including that the shortened departure period could
impact STEM fields where foreign students constitute a significant
portion of the graduate student population and workforce.
Also discussing the OPT program, one commenter stated that hard end
dates can collide with graduation and employment start dates under OPT
and STEM OPT and the grace-period reduction further complicates
transfers and changes of level. The United States hosted more than 1.1
million foreign students in 2023/24, and 242,782 students participated
in OPT--record highs. Even small percentages of disrupted transitions
would affect thousands of offers and research projects. At a national
scale, a 1 percent policy-driven deferral/attrition/drop-out
([ap]11,000 students) corresponds to roughly $0.43 billion less in
annual tuition plus local spending, based on Association of
International Educators' (NAFSA) $43.8 billion total economic
contribution across 1.13 million students ($38,900 per student).
Another commenter stated that OPT requires an extensive
adjudication process, typically three to four months for approval and
issuance of the EAD. Students may only file for OPT within 90 days
prior to their program end date, and any delay in adjudication,
issuance, or delivery of the EAD can extend well beyond the proposed
30-day grace period. A commenter was concerned DHS had not provided
sufficient
[[Page 45045]]
guidance on how the shortened grace period would apply in complex
scenarios involving OPT and international travel. A commenter also
stated that, under the proposal, F-1 students admitted under D/S would
continue to receive a 60-day grace period following their program end
date, consistent with prior rules. However, the proposal fails to
account for a critical edge case. Under current regulations, an F-1
student may select an OPT start date up to 60 days after their program
end date. Consider, for example, a student whose OPT EAD card--issued
prior to the effective date of the proposed rule--bears a start date 59
days after program completion. The commenter reported the proposal is
unclear as to whether such an EAD would remain valid if the student
departed the United States after the program end date and sought
reentry. The commenter asked if the newly reduced 30-day grace period
applies retroactively to such students, thereby rendering their validly
issued EAD unusable. The commenter continued that it remains unclear
whether a student would also be required to file an EOS application to
preserve their status, despite already holding an approved and valid
EAD. This ambiguity raises serious concerns about retroactive
impairment of vested rights and undermines the predictability and
reliability essential to the immigration system.
Multiple commenters stated they anticipated their specific work
sectors would be affected by the decrease from 60 days to 30 days,
including:
In Technology: Final interviews, relocation logistics, and
HR onboarding often require more than 30 days for international
graduates to transition into tech roles. The current 60-day period is
already tight and cutting it in half will make tech companies lose
promising candidates.
In Accounting/CPA: The busy season stretches into late
spring, and international staff often finish work assignments before
transitioning to OPT or other statuses. Thirty days is insufficient to
close out engagements, relocate housing, and file applications without
risk of status violation.
In Tax Consultancy: Filing seasons are cyclical, and
projects often stretch beyond a month. Critical deadlines including
quarterly filings or compliance reviews could be missed, creating risk
for the U.S. tax system.
Global Supply Chain: Predictable cycles are disrupted by
shortening the grace period, leaving gaps in staffing that cannot be
modeled or mitigated in time.
Several commenters expressed opposition to DHS's rationale for
reducing the F-1 departure period to align with other nonimmigrant visa
categories. One commenter stated that F-1 students differ significantly
from M and J visa holders, as they are full-time, degree-seeking
individuals with unique administrative needs who often establish deeper
connections and accumulate more possessions during their longer stays.
Commenters also expressed concern with comparisons to H-1B holders with
a 10-day grace period, remarking that the departure logistics for
professional workers differ significantly from those of students who
have developed years' worth of belongings and community ties.
Response: DHS understands concerns related to the shortened
departure period. However, as noted in the NPRM, many nonimmigrants who
are authorized to remain in the United States for several years are
only provided with a 10-day period to depart the United States. In
addition, individuals in other student and exchange visitor
categories--M vocational students and J exchange visitors--have been
subject to a 30-day departure period for many years under the current
regulations and have shown that this time frame is sufficient. This
change is meant to align all nonimmigrant student categories with the
same departure period.
DHS disagrees with the contention that it takes longer for F
nonimmigrant students to depart than it does for J-1 scholars and
physicians, some of whom stay up to 7 years, and DHS believes it has
provided sufficient justification for making the change to the
departure period timeframe. As stated in the NPRM, the F and J
classifications should have a standard period of time to prepare for
departure, or take other actions to extend, change, or otherwise
maintain lawful status.\202\ The F category, albeit distinct from M or
J, shares a core similarity in that many aliens in these categories are
seeking admission to the United States to study at U.S. educational
institutions. Thus, these categories should have a standard period of
time to prepare for departure, or take other actions to extend, change,
or otherwise maintain lawful status.\203\ Notably, J exchange visitors
only get 30 days to depart and do so effectively, and commenters have
not identified meaningful distinctions between F nonimmigrant students
and J exchange visitors that should be considered, or that demonstrate
why a different period for departure for F nonimmigrant students would
be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ See Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers
and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant
Workers, 81 FR 82398, 82401 (Nov. 18, 2016).
\203\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS does not believe that this rule will increase overstays and
unlawful presence especially due to USCIS processing delays. Upon
nearing the expiration of the fixed admission period, F, J, and I
nonimmigrants may seek to extend their status with USCIS by timely
filing an application for EOS. Upon a timely filed EOS, F, J, and I
nonimmigrants will not need to cease their studies, programs or
activities authorized within their nonimmigrant classification. As
discussed in sec. IV.G. above, students may apply for an EOS with USCIS
if seeking to continue a research project or other academic project, or
if otherwise needing additional time to complete their academic
program. A student ultimately has the responsibility to comply with the
law. For students who depart the United States, they may apply for
admission with CBP upon re-entry rather than with USCIS.
Furthermore, this rule also includes provisions to minimize any
employment interruptions for those F-1 nonimmigrants filing timely EOS
applications and seeking to extend their employment authorization. Any
F-1 student's currently on authorized on- campus, CPT and/or severe
economic hardship authorized employment are automatically extended
during the pendency of the EOS application, but such automatic
extension may not exceed 240 days beginning from the end date of his or
her period of admission. For severe economic hardship employment
authorization resulting from emergent circumstances under 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(vi), the employment authorization will be automatically
extended for up to 240 days or until the end date stated in the Federal
Register notice announcing the suspension of certain requirements,
whichever is earlier. However, for any F-1 student who files an EOS
application during the 30-day grace period for departure provided under
new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v), the F-1 nonimmigrant will not receive an
automatic extension of authorized employment, including on-campus
employment, CPT, and severe economic hardship, and must wait for
approval of the EOS application (and employment authorization
application, if required) before engaging in one of the forementioned
employment benefits. Notably, this rule does not make any significant
changes to the automatic extension of employment authorization
regulations
[[Page 45046]]
governing the H-1B cap-gap extension under redesignated 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(vii) and the EAD extensions for STEM OPT under 8 CFR
214.2(f)(11)(i)(C) and 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(6)(iv). Under this rule,
eligible F-1 nonimmigrants will continue to benefit from the cap-gap
automatic EOS and any employment authorization, which extends until
April 1 of the fiscal year for which the H-1B status is being requested
or until the validity start date of the approved petition, whichever is
earlier. Similarly, eligible F-1 nonimmigrants who have timely applied
for the 24-month STEM OPT extension will benefit from the automatic
extension of employment until the date of USCIS' written decision on
the Form I-765, but not to exceed 180 days.
DHS does recognize confusion may arise related to the shortened
grace period and OPT, since students will now have 30 days, rather than
60 days, to depart the country or seek to maintain lawful status, but
current regulations allow a student to request a start date that is up
to 60 days after the student's program ends. To resolve this conflict,
DHS has updated 8 CFR 214.2(f)(11)(i)(D) to replace ``60'' with ``30.''
This technical change aligns with the 30-day period that was proposed
in the NPRM under 8 CFR 214.2 (f)(11)(i)(B)(2) and with the 30-day
period of preparation for departure under new 8 CFR 214.2 (f)(5)(v).
c. Recommendations and Alternatives to the Proposed 30-Day Departure
Period
Comments: Many commenters offered the alternative of keeping the
60-day departure period intact. Others recommended special departure
period provisions for specific situations. For example, a commenter
suggested maintaining a 60-day departure period for graduates of
accredited health-professional programs and for students with timely-
filed OPT/STEM OPT or cap-gap situations. Another commenter suggested
limited, compliance-conditioned automatic grace extensions to reduce
needless filings and ``status gaps'' for OPT/STEM OPT and R&D roles.
One commenter suggested that the 60-day grace period be extended if
the F-1 visa holder is seeking employment in the United States. Another
commenter suggested graduates be granted a minimum 90-day grace period,
extendable to 120 days when seeking academic employment. A commenter
suggested maintaining the 60-day period while implementing additional
reporting requirements in SEVIS at the end of the departure period or
allowing more flexibility in departure periods based on individual
circumstances. Commenters recommended that DHS focus on strengthening
visa screening at the issuance stage rather than reducing the F-1
departure period to address security concerns.
Rather than shortening the F-1 period, a commenter suggested
extending the departure period for J-1 and M-1 visa holders to 60 days
for consistency across student visa categories. Other commenters
suggested making the departure period 45 days. Some commenters
suggested requiring periodic SEVIS check-ins or improved reporting
mechanisms, rather than shortening the grace period. Similarly, one
commenter stated that to the extent the grace period reduction is
intended to reduce the likelihood of potential unlawful stays or
activities, a background check at the beginning of the approval process
is the key.
Three commenters recommended that the grace period be extended. One
suggested extending it to a period of one year, rather than 30 days,
another to a period of 180 days, and another that did not state a
specific period of time. Another encouraged DHS to allow a middle-
ground solution, such as fixed-term authorization combined with
automatic grace periods, or tiered extensions based on academic
progress and institutional standing.
Response: DHS believes that changing the departure period for F
nonimmigrants from 60 to 30 days is appropriate for several reasons as
discussed in the NPRM. Under existing regulations, F-1 students are
provided 60 days following the completion of their studies and any
practical training to prepare for departure from the United States.
However, this is twice as long as other SEVP programs (J and M
nonimmigrants). In addition, this 60-day period is also six times
longer than certain nonimmigrants who are authorized to remain in the
United States for years but are only provided with a 10-day period to
depart the United States. For example, DHS provides a 10-day period
following the end of the alien's admission period as stated on the I-94
for aliens in the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, L-1, and TN classifications in a
2016 rulemaking. DHS notes that a grace period of up to 10 days after
the end of an authorized validity period provides a reasonable amount
of time for such nonimmigrants to depart the United States or take
other actions to extend, change, or otherwise maintain lawful
status.\204\ It is unclear to DHS why F students would need a
significantly longer period of time to prepare for departure when other
nonimmigrants have less time to prepare for departure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ See 81 FR at 82401 (Nov. 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS believes that 30 days is sufficient and an appropriate balance
between the 60-day and 10-day periods that aliens are granted to
prepare for departure. As with the J and M nonimmigrants, F students
are seeking admission to the United States to study at a U.S.
educational institution. Thus, DHS believes the standard period of time
of 30 days is reasonable and adequate period for F-1 students to
prepare for departure and is in line with similar classifications (the
M and J departure periods). DHS understands that there are legitimate
reasons for F-1 nonimmigrants to require additional time to complete a
program. As noted, the rule provides F-1 nonimmigrants with the
opportunity to apply for EOS if required, or to depart and re-enter the
United States. DHS disagrees that 60 days is insufficient to either
apply for EOS if required, or to depart and re-enter the United States.
3. Practical Training: OPT, STEM OPT, CPT, and I-94 Expiration Dates
Comments: A commenter requested clarification and examples as to
how the fixed admission period and grace periods would interact with:
(a) completion of Program A to post-completion OPT (and STEM OPT, if
applicable) to enrollment in Program; (b) school processing timelines;
and (c) any automatic or conditional extensions, if the rule is
finalized.
Response: The proposed rule provides timelines and mechanisms for
maintaining status when transitioning between programs, engaging in
post-completion OPT/STEM OPT, and applying for extensions. See new 8
CFR 214.2(f)(5), (f)(7), and (f)(8), and 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10). First, F-1
students are initially admitted for the length of their program as
listed on Form I-20, not to exceed 4 years, plus a 30-day grace period
for departure or to take steps to maintain lawful status. After
completing Program A, a student may apply for post-completion OPT
through their DSO and upon the DSO's recommendation, apply for EOS and
employment authorization with USCIS. If EOS is approved for OPT, the
student's period of admission is extended to the end date of the EAD
for OPT, plus a 30-day grace period. If eligible, the student may apply
for a STEM OPT extension. Both would require filing a subsequent EOS
application and employment authorization to USCIS. If approved, the
admission period extends to the new EAD end date for STEM OPT, plus a
30-
[[Page 45047]]
day grace period. If the student wishes to begin a new program at a
higher educational level, they must obtain a new Form I-20 and, if the
new program will not be completed within the current admission period,
apply for EOS before the end of their current authorized stay
(including the 30-day grace period). However, if USCIS has not approved
the EAD at the time of application for admission but the DSO has
approved a term for OPT, the F or J nonimmigrant may be admitted for up
to 240 days to allow for USCIS to adjudicate the EAD.
The student must ensure their EOS application is filed before the
current period of admission expires. If a student timely files an EOS
application before their current admission period expires, they are
considered in a period of authorized stay while the application is
pending. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii). For certain types of
employment (e.g., on-campus, CPT, severe economic hardship), employment
authorization is automatically extended for up to 240 days while the
EOS is pending. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii) and new 8 CFR
274a.12(c)(3)(iii). If the EOS application is filed during the 30-day
grace period after completion of studies or OPT, the student may
continue studying but may not engage in practical training or
employment until the EOS is approved. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(iii)(B). The rule provides that USCIS may approve
extensions in cases such as school closures, natural disasters, or
other circumstances beyond the student's control, as described in the
rule. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(i)(C)(2)(iii).
Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns in that the rule would
eliminate Day-1 CPT, indicating that fields such as business, computer
science, and health sciences often require early practical training as
part of the academic program. Along these lines, they stated that
prohibiting Day-1 CPT would undermine the integrity of these academic
programs and prevent students from meeting graduation requirements on
time, while reducing the ability of U.S. industries to access talent
trained in cutting-edge fields. Similarly, another commenter noted that
the rule would impose financial accessibility and tuition burdens
because students rely on Day-1 CPT to pay tuition and living expenses,
given that foreign students must pay full tuition. The commenter called
for DHS to retain flexibility for Day-1 CPT authorization, while
addressing concerns through different methods, such as increase in
reporting requirements or SEVIS oversight.
Response: These comments misinterpret the rule as the rule does not
prohibit or eliminate Day-1 CPT. The rule primarily imposes a fixed
admission period of up to 4 years for F-1 students and requires
students to apply for EOS if additional time is needed to complete
their programs of study or for practical training. In doing so, it
eliminates the D/S framework, but it does not make substantive changes
to CPT.
Separately, DHS notes that the primary purpose of the F-1
nonimmigrant status is for foreign students to study in the United
States and not a pathway for employment. Moreover, as a requisite for
the F-1 nonimmigrant visa, foreign students must provide evidence of
financial ability to support themselves to study in the United States
by demonstrating that they (or their sponsor) have sufficient funds to
cover tuition and living expenses during the period of intended study.
As such, F-1 students should not be relying on future or prospective
income from Day-1 CPT as their primary means to financially support
themselves in the United States.
Comments: Many commenters stated the need for OPT reform,
specifically highlighting OPT students working in STEM. One commenter
said despite being backed by the INA, OPT is now used to bypass
congressionally set limits on H-1B visas, with the program operating as
an H-1B substitute. The commenter further states that this influx of
OPT students into STEM fields has offset many American STEM graduates
into other non-related fields. Another commenter suggested that, due to
not being explicitly authorized by statute and disproportionally
benefitting foreign graduates over U.S. citizens and permanent
residents, the STEM OPT extension program should be phased out
entirely.
Response: This rule does not make any substantive changes to OPT
and STEM OPT other than in the context of admission and extensions.
Requests for OPT, STEM OPT, and H-1B reform are outside of the scope of
this rule. However, DHS notes that while this rule does not make any
substantive changes to OPT and STEM OPT other than in the context of
admission period and extensions of stay, DHS believes that
strengthening the F nonimmigration classification and creating more
vetting mechanisms will help DHS in identifying issues of OPT and STEM
OPT fraud and abuse.
Comments: A commenter stated that the overlap between OPT
processing and H-1B application cycles creates a 6-8 week window where
status uncertainties could disrupt the talent pipeline.
Response: DHS confirms that the rule does not modify or remove
automatic extension of the authorized period of stay and employment
authorization for F-1 students who are beneficiaries of timely filed H-
1B cap-subject petitions. Eligible F-1 students will continue to be
granted automatic extension of the authorized period of stay and
employment authorization through April 1 of the relevant fiscal year or
until the H-1B petition's validity start date, whichever is earlier.
Comments: A commenter recommended clarification on the impact of
the proposed rule in specific situations, including students who
receive a Form I-20 for 3 years and a Form I-94 valid for 3 years, but
graduate in 1.5 years. The commenter asked if these students need to
apply for extension of their I-94 end stay when they apply for post-
completion OPT, since the student would still be within their Form I-94
3-year timeframe. Alternatively, the commenter asked if these students
wanted to apply for a STEM OPT, would they need to apply for a Form I-
94 EOS before or concurrently with the STEM OPT extension.
Response: In such cases, students will be able to continue pursuing
their full course of study. If the I-20 says 3 years, their admission
period on the I-94 will be 3 years plus the 30-day departure period.
Before the I-94 expiration date, they will need to file for an EOS.
They will also need to apply for EAD for OPT or STEM OPT simultaneously
with the EOS. The EOS is only valid until the date of their employment
authorization. Aliens who need additional time to complete their
current course of study, including requests for post-completion OPT,
STEM OPT, or academic training, or would like to start a new course of
study or exchange visitor program must file for an EOS with USCIS. This
EOS will be for an admission period up to the new program end date, or
OPT end date, listed on the Form I-20 or DS-2019, or successor form,
with the maximum period of 4-years.
4. OPT Regulatory Language
Comments: A commenter stated that the proposed regulatory text at 8
CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i) only mentions OPT. The commenter noted that this may
be an oversight and requested confirmation that transfers and change of
level cases would also be mentioned in the regulations should the rule
be finalized.
Response: DHS agrees with the commenter and has updated the
regulatory text to clarify a continuing F-
[[Page 45048]]
1 student may be granted additional time to complete their program of
study as described in new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7) and (f)(8)(iv), begin a new
program of study, as described in new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(D) and
(f)(7), or following the completion of studies to engage in post-
completion OPT and STEM OPT, as described in new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(i)(D).
5. Leave of Absence
Comments: Some commenters worried about instances where students
might need a leave of absence, including needing to leave for medical,
personal, or family reasons, or for mandatory military duty in the
student's home country. Commenters sought clarification on how the rule
would apply to students needing to take a leave of absence and return
to resume their program and some expressed concern about the student
needing to complete the EOS process with a possible denial. One
commenter reported that, under the prior rules, students who needed
this temporary leave of absence would depart the United States but
could then return under a new SEVIS record at the same degree level to
resume their studies. The commenter was unclear on the applicability of
the new limitation relating to completion of a degree at the same
educational level on this population.
Response: An F-1 student may take a temporary absence of five
months or less and return using his or her previously created SEVIS
record and Form I-20, endorsed by the DSO for reentry. See 8 CFR
214.2(f)(4), which is unchanged in this rulemaking. Prior to ceasing
participation in a full course of study, the student must inform his or
her DSO and the DSO must terminate the student's SEVIS record for the
reason of Authorized Early Withdrawal. Prior to the student seeking
reentry, the DSO must submit a correction request in SEVIS to return
the student's SEVIS record back to active status. The SEVIS record must
be in Active status prior to the student requesting reentry into the
United States. A DSO can submit a request to change an F-1 student's
SEVIS record to Active up to 60 days in advance of the student's return
from a temporary absence. If an F-1 student is absent from the United
States for more than five months, except in cases where a student is
studying abroad, the student will need to seek admission in initial
status, which includes but is not limited to, obtaining a new Form I-20
and will result in a new determination of the student's authorized
period of stay.
Further, this final rule provides that if the student is unable to
complete his or her program of study by the end date indicated on his
or her Form I-20 due to compelling academic reasons, documented illness
or medical condition and/or circumstances beyond the student's control,
the student may apply for an EOS from USCIS. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7).
The student should carefully consider the timing of his or her
extension request but in any case, USCIS must receive the request for
extension prior to the program end date noted on the Form I-20.
K. J Nonimmigrants
1. General Impacts on all J-1 Programs
Comments: Commenters expressed significant concerns about the
rule's impact on J-1 nonimmigrants, their dependents, and on the
exchange program categories. Commenters cautioned that the rigidity of
the rule could threaten institutional knowledge and research outcomes
in various industries, including public health, medical treatment, and
scientific advancement more broadly, as they rely on experienced,
stable research personnel and staff in J-1 status. Relatedly, a
commenter warned about the loss of federal return on investment,
explaining that many research projects are funded by federal agencies,
such as the NSF and NIH, and such projects could be interrupted by the
proposed rule, directly threatening the integrity of publicly funded
research and the return on taxpayer investment. Commenters stated that
the rule imposes time limitations on J-1 categories and requires
exchange visitors to undergo a delayed and costly extension process
through USCIS, removing the flexibility currently inherent in the
exchange visitor program and resulting in financial and administrative
burdens to sponsors, students, host families, and schools. Similarly,
another commenter further noted that the new costs and processing
requirements would impose a disproportionate financial burden and
hinder a sponsor's ability to manage extensions efficiently under
existing DoS regulations.
Specifically, commenters warned that EOS delays or denials could
render extension decisions ineffective, create legal uncertainty,
interrupt students' ability to remain enrolled, disrupt research,
healthcare systems, educational progression, and discourage
participation in U.S. programs thereby reducing overall participation
in J-1 programs. Some noted that these programs often require more than
four years to complete, \205\ meaning multiple EOS applications would
be necessary. An NGO reported that USCIS already has a record backlog
of more than 11 million pending cases and a processing time of up to 18
months; therefore, USCIS will not be able to successfully manage the
additional filings through the elimination of the DoS process. The NGO
noted this would greatly impact the exchange model by no longer being
able to support J-1 students' goal of extending their stay, fulfilling
their academic aspirations, or submitting a dual application with the
intention to study at two different universities for a year-long
exchange experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Some commenters stated that the National Center for
Education Statistics reports that the median time for completing a
bachelor's degree is 4.3 years, and the National Science Foundation
reports a median of 5.7 years for completing a Ph.D. Others added
that the National Center for Education Statistics calculates the
median time to complete a Ph.D. program as 7.3 years. Commenters
referenced National Center for Education Statistics, Fast facts:
Time to degree, U.S. Dep't of Educ., https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=569; National Science Foundation, National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics, Doctorate recipients from U.S.
universities: 2023 (Survey of Earned Doctorates) (2024), https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/earned-doctorates/2023#data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, commenters voiced concerns relating to SEVIS and its
administrative challenges. Specifically, a commenter stated that the
proposed rule would create confusion in the system upon which sponsors
and government officials rely for tracking J-1 program details. The
commenter stated that currently, each exchange visitor has a single end
date tracked through SEVIS, but with the proposed changes, the J-1
nonimmigrants would have a DS-2019 end date, and a Form I-94 end date,
which might be different. The commenter also noted that this may cause
a dependent family member to have a Form I-94 record with yet another
end date, making it more challenging for J programs to track the status
of these nonimmigrants, which could potentially lead to inadvertent
lapses in compliance. Similarly, another commenter warned that an EOS
application would not provide a meaningful additional checkpoint and
might even weaken the existing provisions in SEVIS by giving program
participants unneeded and unmonitored time after program completion.
Response: DHS appreciates these concerns about all the changes that
will have to be made to comply with this final rule. DHS recognizes
this rule may result in adjustments by stakeholders, administrative
costs, and time, but the enhanced national security and program
integrity outweigh these burdens. SEVIS is being updated to handle
these
[[Page 45049]]
changes. For example, the I-94 date will now be visible in SEVIS so
that DSOs and ROs will be able to flag the need for an EOS and inform
the participants. However, dependents will be expected to track their
own need for an EOS if, for some reason, the dates on the principal's
I-94 does not match that of the dependents. The I-94s will always
include the 30-day departure period afforded F and J nonimmigrants;
therefore, there should be no new unmonitored time that hasn't existed
previously. If the principals finish their programs early, SEVIS will
be updated to reflect that change and the family will have 30 days to
depart after the completion of the program.
The D/S framework generally lacks predetermined points in time for
USCIS or CBP immigration officers to directly evaluate whether F, J,
and I nonimmigrants are maintaining their status and poses a challenge
to DHS's ability to effectively monitor and oversee these categories of
nonimmigrants. DHS believes that 4-year maximum admission periods will
provide more frequent direct check-in points for nonimmigrants and
align the educational structure of the programs for their intended
purposes. In sum, DHS believes these measures are necessary to protect
the integrity of these nonimmigrant programs due to heightened concerns
related to fraud, abuse, and national security.
In addition, DHS does not believe that the rule will cause
educational or employment disruptions for exchange visitors, schools,
sponsors, or any other stakeholders because the rule allows J-1
nonimmigrants to continue employment and training activities,
consistent with the exchange program, while a properly filed extension
request is pending, for up to 240 days beyond a J-1 nonimmigrant's
expiration of the authorized period of admission. DHS notes that the
240-day rule is the same requirement for most other nonimmigrants,
including members of many other professions (e.g., H-1B, L-1, O-1,
etc.). DHS also notes that USCIS generally recommends that
nonimmigrants apply for EOS within the six months \206\ preceding the
expiration of their current stay and the 240 only starts tolling after
the expiration of their current stay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ With respect to the earliest filing date for a Form I-539,
there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain date
ahead of expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS acknowledges that a J-1 nonimmigrant will not be able to
continue employment if the EOS application is still pending after 240
days. However, the J-1 nonimmigrant will be able to remain in the
United States in a period of authorized stay while the EOS request
remains pending. While this could result in administrative costs and
time to adjust for changes, DHS believes the enhanced national security
and program integrity outweigh these burdens. Furthermore, as discussed
previously, J-1 nonimmigrants may be able to seek expedited
adjudication through USCIS in certain instances.\207\ Given these
options, DHS disagrees that a fixed period of admission and the
requirement to file an EOS application is unduly burdensome such that
this rule will discourage J-1 exchange visitors from participating in
these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ See Expedite Requests, supra note 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Duplicative Processes and Regulatory Authority Conflicts
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concern that the proposed
rule would create a duplicative process for J-1 exchange visitors
seeking extensions, writing that DoS already has effective processes in
place for J-1 extensions. The commenters stated that DoS currently has
sole authority when it comes to approving program extensions for all J-
1 program categories and the proposed rule, if finalized, would
complicate this authority by requiring participants to file a separate
EOS application with USCIS. A commenter requested clarification about
how the DoS will coordinate with DHS to minimize contradictory
timelines between visa issuance, I-20/DS-2019 validity, and EOS
approval.
Commenters stated that the existing D/S framework for J-1
nonimmigrants includes strict limitations, making this rule
unnecessary. On that same note, commenters emphasized that J-1 exchange
visitors are carefully monitored, with DSOs and ROs regularly reporting
information including address changes, academic progress, and current
employment details to DHS and to DoS. A commenter also noted that J-1
programs currently have defined maximum program lengths, category
change restrictions, and additional safeguards such as the 2-year home
residency requirement and repeat participation bars that effectively
discourage extended stays. A DSO noted that DoS regulations are
sufficient to accomplish DHS's goals, as the J-1 program contains 14
different categories of which many already have regulatory time limits
in place under 22 CFR 62.20(i)(3), rendering this rule duplicative and
unnecessary.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter that this rule creates
duplicative processes that are not necessary. Notably, the DoS
regulations for J-1 nonimmigrants to extend their programs are distinct
from the requirements for USCIS to adjudicate their EOS. The program
period refers to the official duration of the academic or training
program in which the nonimmigrant is enrolled (e.g., the start and end
dates of a degree or course); the period of stay is the length of time
the nonimmigrant is authorized to remain in the United States, which
may include time before, during, and after the program period, as
permitted by their visa status.
While an RO's recommendation and DoS approval of program extension
may be one factor in favor of an EOS, an immigration officer also
reviews factors relating to an alien's immigration status, including
any criminal records and grounds of removability that may be triggered
based on criminal background checks. ROs are not immigration officers
and lack the statutory and regulatory authority to grant EOS. The EOS
process under this rule would give immigration officers a mechanism to
make this evaluation at reasonably frequent intervals. DHS expects this
change to deter and prevent fraud.
To begin the EOS process, a J-1 nonimmigrant will first have to
obtain a recommendation from ROs, and approval from DoS where
applicable, under the DoS regulations. DHS has specified in the rule
that the EOS may be granted subject to the DoS regulations on the
extension of the program, contingent upon DoS' approval of the
extension of the program itself. See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv)(C)
(``[s]ubject to the restrictions in the regulations at 22 CFR part 62,
extensions of stay may be granted for a period up to the length of the
program, as listed on the Form DS-2019, or successor form, not to
exceed 4-years, unless the J-1 exchange visitor is otherwise restricted
by regulations at 22 CFR part 62.''). Specifically, DoS regulations
provide that the ROs may extend a J-1 exchange visitor's participation
in the Exchange Visitor Program up to the limit of the permissible
period of participation authorized for the alien's specific program
category. See 22 CFR 62.43. The RO then issues a duly executed Form DS-
2019 reflecting the extension and provides a notification copy of the
form to the DoS. See 22 CFR 62.43(a)-(b). Extensions beyond the maximum
program duration are allowed in some program categories for exceptional
or unusual circumstances, with approval
[[Page 45050]]
from DoS. To obtain approval for such extensions, the RO must submit an
electronic request that justifies the petition and provides supporting
documentation to the DoS on behalf of the participant. See 22 CFR
62.43(c). Thereafter, under the requirements of this new rule, a J-1
nonimmigrant would need to apply for EOS with USCIS. If DoS denies the
extension of the exchange visitor program, the nonimmigrant has no
basis on which to file an EOS with USCIS. USCIS would deny the petition
because there is no valid underlying program.
In sum, DoS and DHS processes and systems are necessarily different
due to the unique responsibilities of the two departments. The
processes established in this rule provide DHS with mechanisms to deter
and prevent fraud, and therefore, are necessary to implement. Under the
D/S framework, there are no background checks required unless the
nonimmigrant applies for a change of status to a different nonimmigrant
status, or another benefit with USCIS. This has created situations
where nonimmigrants in D/S can be present for long periods in the
United States without undergoing U.S. government review in the form of
an EOS application, including accompanying background checks, or
subsequent visa application or inspection at a POE, because program
extensions under the D/S framework can be acquired through application
to a DSO or RO. Recognizing and addressing this vulnerability is a key
part of this rule's national security goals and is vital to increase
the U.S. government's oversight and monitoring of these aliens.
3. Impacts to U.S. Foreign Relations and Intellectual Exchange
Comments: Commenters stated that a ``one-size-fits-all'' admission
period limit could deter nonimmigrants from participating in cultural
and educational exchange programs. Commenters stated the proposed rule
would negatively affect U.S. interests and reduce exchange programs
that build goodwill and mutual understanding. Commenters asserted that
the proposed changes to the J-1 program conflict with the United
States' objective of strengthening its economic and intellectual
capital by discouraging international participation and by imposing
artificial limits on scholars' stays, signaling a retreat from the
nation's commitment to mutual understanding and knowledge sharing.
A commenter recommended that DHS reconsider the proposed
modification to the J-1 visa provisions and maintain the recent policy
changes that have supported the program's success. The commenter
explained that historically the J-1 visa has facilitated cultural and
educational exchange, and that the removal of the 2-year home-country
physical-presence requirement for J-1 visa holders from 34 countries,
including China, India, and South Korea, represented a significant step
toward strengthening international collaboration and improved the
United States' ability to retain global talent. The commenter wrote
that reinstating or altering this requirement could deter prospective
exchange visitors, particularly those from countries recently removed
from the DoS Skills List and further asserted that such changes could
reduce the competitiveness of U.S. institutions in attracting top-tier
international scholars and researchers.
Response: DHS appreciates these concerns. However, DHS does not
intend for the rule to result in a significant decline in foreign
student participation in J-1 programs nor a significant reduction in
talent, technological innovation, or economic benefits associated with
foreign nationals. DHS asserts that the United States will continue to
attract talented foreign exchange students, scholars, researchers, and
physicians because U.S. institutions offer a high-quality education.
For further discussion on this issue regarding participation in J-1
programs, see General Impacts on all J-1 Programs, Sec. IV.K.1 above.
DHS also notes that the proposed rule changes how J-1s are admitted
and how they extend their stay, but it does not affect the two-year
home residency requirement. If a J-1 is subject to INA 212(e), they
must still fulfill or obtain a waiver for that requirement before
certain immigration benefits are available, regardless of the new
admission procedures under this rule.
4. Grace Period for J-1 Nonimmigrant Classification
Comments: A couple of commenters stated that the J-1 grace periods
should be maintained or extended. Furthermore, a commenter expressed
that the J-1 grace period should be increased to 60 days. Another
commenter expressed concern about the applicability and eligibility
requirements of the 30-day grace period under the proposed rule, and
requested clarification on what would happen to J-1 nonimmigrants who
do not complete their academic objectives.
Response: DHS has considered the effects of the rule on J-1
nonimmigrant physicians, teachers, and other exchange visitor program
categories. DHS does not believe that this rule will discourage J-1
exchange visitors from participating in exchange programs. DHS
disagrees that the 30-day grace period is an insufficient grace period
for J-1 nonimmigrants and declines to increase the period to 60 days.
In fact, the regulations prior to this rule provided a 30-day period
for departure and this rule does not change that. See 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(ii) (2025). J-1 nonimmigrants who are unable to complete
their programs on time and need additional time to complete their
academic objectives may file for EOS to USCIS, which will adjudicate
the EOS. In addition, DHS notes that as long as J-1 nonimmigrants
submit an EOS prior to the expiration of the I-94, which includes the
30-day grace period, their extension request will be considered timely
filed, and the J-1 nonimmigrants will be able to continue their J-1
authorized activities in accordance with the requirements outlined in
new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(vii). Allowed activities are also discussed in
section IV.K.1 above.
5. J-2 Dependents
Comments: Commenters expressed concern regarding the requirement
that J-2 dependents also need to apply for an extension. A commenter
stated that the proposed rule is not clear on how the admission of J-1
dependents will be impacted if this rule is finalized. The commenter
requested clarification about whether dependent admissions are
automatically tied to the approval of the principal's visa approval.
Response: The authorized period of initial admission for a J-2
spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21 cannot exceed the
period of authorized admission of the principal J-1 exchange visitor.
Likewise, EOS for J-2 dependents cannot exceed the authorized admission
period of the principal J-1 exchange visitor. See new 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(ii)(B) and new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv)(E). A J-2 dependent's
EOS application may either be included on the J-1 nonimmigrant's EOS
application, or the J-2 nonimmigrants must file their own EOS. On the
application for EOS, the J-2 nonimmigrants must prove that they are
maintaining lawful status and have not engaged in unauthorized
employment. Furthermore, if the J-1 nonimmigrant's EOS request is
denied, the J-2 nonimmigrants' EOS will also be denied.
[[Page 45051]]
6. Specific J-1 Programs
a. Medical Training, Healthcare Programs, and Healthcare Workers
Comments: Commenters stated the rule would significantly disrupt
medical training and the clinical coverage that J-1 physicians provide
across the United States. Commenters also pointed to the shortage of
healthcare workers in the United States in various fields and raised
concerns on the potential impacts of the rule to the U.S. healthcare
system, including decreasing participation of physicians in the J-1
program. Many commenters emphasized that international physicians are
essential to the U.S. healthcare system with one citing to statistics
from a J-1 sponsor.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ A commenter referenced Intealth, J-1 Visa Sponsorship,
2024; Essential to U.S. Health Care (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.intealth.org/pdfs/J-1_US_Infographic.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, commenters stated that international medical
graduates (IMGs) constitute approximately 25 percent of the current
physician workforce and play a vital role in addressing these
shortages. Commenters also noted that approximately 17,000 J-1
physicians currently provide essential patient care across more than
770 teaching hospitals in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico, and that more than 4,000 J-1 physicians enter U.S.
residency and fellowship programs each year. Commenters mentioned that
IMGs, including practitioners and trainees, represent large numbers
particularly in the specialty fields, such as nephrology,
endocrinology, psychiatry, psychology, geriatrics, infectious diseases,
Alzheimer's and cancer research, epidemiology, biomedical sciences, and
clinical research. A commenter wrote that infectious disease physician
care is especially important especially for HIV research/care, and that
almost a third of infectious disease physicians come from other
countries, including those on J-1 visas.
In addition, some commenters added that J-1 physicians
disproportionately serve in primary care specialties experiencing the
most severe shortages, including internal medicine, pediatrics, and
family medicine. An individual who identified as a physician, citing
the ECFMG, noted that this rule would impact over 15,000 J-1 physicians
in residency programs nationwide, three out of four of whom are J-1
residents in a primary care specialty (Internal Medicine, Family
Medicine or Pediatrics), with greater concentrations in hospitals and
communities experiencing shortages. Similarly, a commenter expressed
concern that the proposed rule, if finalized, would have a devastating
impact on the health care of children, the training of the future
pediatric subspecialty physician workforce, and future scientific
research in the field. Another commenter stated that the proposed rule
could cause a nursing shortage as foreign students play a vital role in
caring for U.S. citizens. Another commenter noted that the rule poses a
threat to preparedness for future pandemics and health crises.
Additionally, commenters stated that J-1 physicians do not displace
U.S. graduates but rather fill residency positions that would otherwise
remain vacant. On that same note, commenters stated that foreign
physicians frequently work in rural and underserved communities where
healthcare access is already limited and bring valuable multilingual
skills and cultural competence to care teams. In a joint submission, a
program sponsor and a healthcare provider explained that in hard-to-
staff regions, shortages form the basis for Health Professional
Shortage Areas (HPSA) and Medically Underserved Areas (MUA)
designations, and that many of these communities, particularly in rural
areas, are unable to fill positions with American medical graduates.
The same commenters emphasized that the current J-1 waiver program
acknowledges this problem by allowing each state a limited number of
waivers to address severe workforce shortages and warned that any
disruption to existing training pathways would further exacerbate
critical subspeciality shortages, including pediatric nephrology,
neurology, endocrinology, infectious disease, and child/adolescent
psychiatry. Along these lines, some commenters added that because some
communities often cannot fill positions with American medical
graduates, the Conrad 30 program and other J-1 waiver programs that
direct physicians to underserved areas after completing their training
are essential for addressing physician shortages in rural and
underserved communities. A commenter also added that J-1 physicians
predominantly train and serve in hospitals located in HPSA and in
regions identified as medium to high-vulnerability by the CDC's Social
Vulnerability Index. In sum, commenters warned that the proposed rule
would make it more difficult for foreign physicians to study and
provide care in rural and underserved communities, potentially
worsening the projected physician shortage, resulting in reduced access
to care, longer wait times, and increased costs, and undermining
patient care across the United States.
The commenters opined that these issues will arise due to the
various requirements of the new rule. With respect to EOS requirements,
commenters expressed concern about the potential for delays in
processing EOS applications, which could prevent physicians from
beginning or continuing their training on time. A commenter remarked
that navigating extension applications during clinical rotations would
create dangerous interruptions in patient care continuity and disrupt
the training pipeline. Another commenter noted that current USCIS
processing times for EOS range from 6 to 19 months, far longer than the
3- to 4-month window between Match Day and residency start, which could
cause disruptions during the Match cycle. The commenter added that
there is not currently an option to expedite or ``premium process'' an
EOS application, and even if there were, such an option would be cost-
prohibitive for J-1 physicians who are only paid a stipend.
Commenters also noted the timeline constraints for filing EOS,
stating that J-1 physicians currently must apply for continuation of
sponsorship annually to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements
and that IMGs are currently in accredited, monitored, and intensely
regimented training programs. They cautioned that the proposed EOS
requirement would incentivize program sponsors to issue DS-2019s for
longer periods to reduce costs, potentially decreasing sponsor
checkpoints for status maintenance--an outcome contrary to the rule's
stated policy goals. Relatedly, commenters also stated that the
proposed rule and the imposed timelines would destabilize graduate
medical education programs across the United States. They explained
that residency and fellowship training operate on precise annual
cycles, with contracts issued just months in advance of the July start
date. Commenters reasoned that residency and fellowship contracts are
typically issued only a few months before the academic year begins on
July 1, creating what they described as ``an impossible timeline'' for
compliance. Commenters added that this would occur annually,
potentially preventing thousands of J-1 physicians from continuing
their training programs on time, further straining an already stressed
healthcare system. Another commenter stated that even brief disruptions
to J-1 status could force hospitals to stop treating patients mid
program, jeopardizing continuity of care in hospitals and clinics.
Further underscoring the length of medical training, many
commenters stated that the proposed four-year limit
[[Page 45052]]
is incompatible with many medical training pathways, which routinely
extend beyond this proposed timeframe; completing a fellowship in
addition to a residency could take five to seven years. Specifically,
commenters stated that the fixed admission periods in the proposed rule
would not allow J-1 physicians to complete their standard residency
programs that lead to certification in specialties that require longer
training periods. Multiple commenters also stated that the proposed
rule would make fellowship trainings nearly impossible for many J-1
physicians, and that preventing clinicians from pursuing lateral
training weakens cross-functional literacy on care teams. Commenters
raised particular concern for medical specialty and subspecialty
training programs, which can last from one to 7 years depending on the
specialty. Commenters noted that while most residency programs require
a minimum of 3 years of training, some specialties require as many as 7
years, which would directly conflict with the proposed 4-year limit.
Commenters remarked that cardiologists and other medical specialists
typically train for 3 years and then a 3-year fellowship and therefore,
they would be disincentivized to continue training with uncertainty for
an extension. Along those lines, a commenter pointed that certain
neurology training pathways, especially child neurology programs, often
exceed the proposed four-year limit, and thus, the rule would inhibit
completion of neurological medical training, exacerbating the current
shortage of neurologists. Similarly, a commenter stated that most
physicians seek subspecialty training beyond their 4 years of residency
training, including most medical and surgical specialties. Another
commenter wrote that the proposed four-year limitation fundamentally
misaligns with the structure of medical education, which typically
requires six to eight years to complete residency and fellowship
training. A professional association further stated that this is
particularly significant as recent survey data indicates that 93
percent of adult neurology residents and 56 percent of child neurology
residents report plans to pursue fellowship training.
Lastly, several commenters noted that the proposed rule would
impact J-1 physicians who have already met the maximum period of
admission for J-1s but have not yet completed their training and
therefore are not eligible for the H-1B lottery.
Response: DHS agrees that J-1 health professionals provide an
important service to the United States and has carefully considered the
effects of the rule on J-1 nonimmigrant physicians and the U.S.
healthcare system. However, DHS does not believe that this rule will
discourage J-1 exchange visitors from participating in medical training
in the United States or make the program cost-prohibitive.
First, DHS acknowledges the concerns regarding delays in EOS
adjudications and potential disruptions while the EOS application is
pending. However, DHS notes that the rule allows J-1 nonimmigrants who
have timely filed for EOS (which USCIS generally recommends that
applicants file within six months preceding the expiration of their
current stay \209\) to continue employment and training activities,
consistent with the exchange program, for up to 240 days beyond the
expiration of their authorized period of admission. Secondly, as
discussed previously in section IV.G.2.a. above, an applicant may
request that USCIS expedite the adjudication of an application,
including for an EOS, that is under USCIS jurisdiction.\210\ DHS will
continue to explore expanding premium processing for Form I-539 for the
affected populations, including J-1 physicians. With respect to the
commenter's concern that premium processing would be cost prohibitive
for J-1 physicians who pay a stipend, DHS recognizes that aliens have
varied ability to pay fees associated with applications, petitions, and
other requests. DHS notes that there is no requirement to request
premium processing, and there is no cost to the alien associated with
an expedite request. Therefore, DHS is not making a change responsive
to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ With respect to the earliest filing date for a Form I-539,
there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain date
ahead of expiration.
\210\ See Expedite Requests, supra note 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, DHS and DoS have made operational changes that will avoid
the need for those professions (e.g., alien physicians, professors, or
research scholars) on a yearly contract from needing to apply for EOS
every year. The DS-2019 will be filled out in more detail, and the free
text field (question number 4) will not only list the name of the
program but will now also list the full dates of the program. Question
number 3 will continue to list the contract end dates. DHS (CBP and
USCIS) will utilize the dates in question number 4 to determine the
maximum duration of the J-1 nonimmigrant's stay up to 4 years subject
to restrictions at 22 CFR part 62. No changes to the regulatory text or
form are required to make this change. It will be accomplished through
training. DHS believes this rule is necessary to improve monitoring of
this population and support the integrity of the country's immigration
system. As with F nonimmigrants, setting the length of the J
nonimmigrant's specific program and requiring EOS extensions thereafter
will establish a mechanism for immigration officers to vet these
nonimmigrants at defined periods and determine whether the J-1
nonimmigrants are complying with the conditions of their
classification. Specifically, requiring J-1 nonimmigrants to request an
EOS will improve consistency of terms of admissions between
nonimmigrant categories, enable stronger oversight by government
officers who will review the nonimmigrant's requests, enhance the
government's ability to effectively enforce the statutory
inadmissibility grounds related to unlawful presence, and deter aliens
and entities from engaging in fraud, abuse, espionage and other
criminal activities within these nonimmigrant programs. While the rule
may have some impact in USCIS processing times, such is the burden of
robust enforcement of the law, and DHS believes that the benefits of
increased contact with the relevant populations of nonimmigrants
outweigh processing time considerations. In sum, these proposed changes
would provide the government with additional protections and mechanisms
to exercise the oversight necessary to vigorously enforce our nation's
immigration laws and protect the integrity of the immigration system.
Comments: Commenters stated that the proposed rule is unnecessary
for the J-1 physician program because it is already subject to strict
requirements and regulated by DoS and non-governmental entities, such
as the ECFMG, ACGME, and monitored in SEVIS. Commenters added that
physician trainees are unlike other J-1 categories because training
occurs in structured, accredited, and already heavily monitored
programs, including accreditation oversight, continuous federal
tracking and reporting, ongoing national and institutional oversight,
and annual compliance renewals. On that note, commenters emphasized
that J-1 physicians are among the most vetted visa holders.
Specifically, commenters explained that J-1 physicians must earn
the ECFMG Certification and undergo national security vetting, identity
checks, and fraud-prevention screening before obtaining their J-1 visa.
Some commenters added that the proposed
[[Page 45053]]
rule would only introduce a duplicative review of J-1 physicians, given
that the J-1 sponsor, ACGME accredited programs, and DS-2019 monitoring
already provide significant oversight for J-1 physicians. A commenter
mentioned that DHS should recognize J-1 sponsorship by a non-
governmental organization as sufficient evidence of compliance to
eliminate duplicative DHS adjudication and administrative burden.
Commenters also added that the rule would not improve compliance but
instead increase the risk of disruptions to training and patient care
in the healthcare system.
Response: DHS acknowledges the commenters' concerns. However, DHS
disagrees that the current system provides sufficient oversight over
the J-1 physicians and that recognizing the work of J-1 sponsors would
be an effective mechanism to prevent fraud and abuse of the nation's
immigration system. Generally, DHS does not have the authority to
delegate its immigration responsibilities to non-government
organizations, even where J-1 is concerned. Furthermore, permitting
non-government organizations to conduct national security and fraud
prevention undermines the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure
the national security of the United States meets certain standards.
As explained earlier at length, see General Impacts on all J-1
Programs, sec. IV.K.1, DoS and DHS processes and systems are
necessarily different due to the unique responsibilities of the two
departments. The processes established in this rule provide DHS with
mechanisms to deter and prevent fraud, and therefore, are necessary to
implement. Recognizing and addressing the vulnerability in the D/S
framework is a key part of this rule's national security goals and is
vital to increase the U.S. government's oversight and monitoring of
these aliens.
Comments: Commenters recommended that DHS create exceptions,
preserve the D/S system, or alternatively lengthen the period of
admission to be longer than 4 years for J-1 physicians without
requiring repeated USCIS filings, to avoid any disruptions in their
training and employment. Some commenters in particular sought
exceptions for certain J-1 physicians, such as physicians completing
their accredited medical training programs and medical residents and
fellows in ACGME-accredited program. Specifically, with respect to
lengthening the admission period, many commenters recommended that the
period of admission align with the full length of their approved
training, residency, or fellowship program, as documented on the Form
DS-2019, or with the DoS recognized length of U.S. medical training,
such as 7 years for physicians, to avoid mid-program EOS applications
and ensure uninterrupted medical education and patient care. Another
commenter stated that full program length admissions should include an
additional 6-month period to accommodate for medical exams, personal
leave, and other aspects of graduate medical education. One recommended
a longer transition period for J-1 physicians to accommodate July start
dates, licensure, and credentialing. A commenter specifically suggested
a 120-day departure period for health-sciences graduates to allow
sufficient time for licensure scheduling and relocation to clinical
positions or residencies. Another commenter recommended that DHS revise
the rule for longer admission periods to allow second master's program
opportunities in healthcare fields.
Several commenters suggested that DHS adopt a more targeted
approach by establishing enhanced SEVIS analytics to identify overstay
patterns, create streamlined renewal processes, and develop bilateral
agreements with key partner countries for expedited processing.
Similarly, a commenter recommended implementing enhanced SEVIS
reporting requirements for medical schools and teaching hospitals,
reasoning that this targeted approach would maintain oversight
capabilities while protecting the integrity of medical training
programs essential to American healthcare delivery.
Some commenters also recommended that DHS streamline COS and EOS
adjudications for J-1 physicians, and medical physicist/other
healthcare professionals, such as waiving biometric requirements and
interviews for EOS filings to reduce administrative burden. One
commenter also added EOS expedited adjudications for J-1 physicians
pursuing a subspecialty. A commenter called for a clear, streamlined
mechanism for program-based extensions that avoids unnecessary delays
and ensures uninterrupted training and patient care if DHS moves
forward with the rule.
Relatedly, other recommendations included changes to provisions
relating to the 240-day rule in the context of pending EOS
applications. Some commenters requested that DHS allow J-1 physicians
to continue their employment activities beyond 240 days or the entire
period that the EOS is pending. Separately, an organization requested
that DHS include specific provisions for J-1 physicians to enable them
to change programs with the appropriately endorsed Form DS-2019, during
the pendency of an EOS application. The organization also provided the
following proposed amendment:``J-1 nonimmigrants who are employment
authorized with a specific employer incident to status continue to be
authorized for such employment, or any employment authorized by their
designated J-1 sponsor on Form DS-2019, for up to 240 days under the
existing regulatory provisions at 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), if their status
expires while their timely filed EOS application is pending.'' The
commenter also requested that DHS modify Form M-274, Employer Handbook,
to reflect the procedures relating to automatic extensions of work
authorization for J-1 physicians.
Lastly, a university program noted that if DHS proceeds with the
rule, any changes to the J-1 program must include robust protections,
including automatic extensions; expedited adjudication; clear safe-
harbors; explicit exemption of clinical training programs from fixed-
end-date requirements; sufficient notice and transition periods for
training programs; and consultation with medical education
stakeholders.
Response: DHS took these comments into consideration and is
sensitive to commenter's concerns that with the time it takes to
process extensions at USCIS, the rule might have an impact on the
ability of J-1 physicians to provide healthcare in the United States.
However, DHS declines to carve out an exemption for J-1 physicians. As
discussed above, in General Impacts on all J-1 Programs, sec. IV.K.1,
J-1 nonimmigrants may request that USCIS expedite the adjudication of
an application, including for an EOS, that is under USCIS
jurisdiction.\211\ With respect to allowing J-1 physicians to continue
employment beyond the 240 days while a timely filed EOS is pending, DHS
notes that the 240-day rule is the same requirement for most other
nonimmigrants, including members of many other professions (e.g., H-1B,
L-1, O-1, etc.). On that note, this rule will create consistency by
aligning the requirements with other nonimmigrant classifications. And
similar to those other visa categories, USCIS generally recommends that
applicants apply for EOS within the six months \212\ preceding the
expiration of
[[Page 45054]]
their currently authorized period of stay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ See Expedite Requests, supra note 167.
\212\ With respect to the earliest filing date for a Form I-539,
there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain date
ahead of expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goals of the rule, described above, extend to all J-1
nonimmigrants, including J-1 physicians. DHS also noted instances of
national security risks in the context of J-1 nonimmigrants.\213\
Because these instances occur in a variety of programs and educational
levels, DHS does not believe that it would be appropriate to only apply
a fixed period of admission for undergraduate students and not for
other students and programs. For further discussion on the purpose and
need for this rule, see secs. II.B. and III.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ See 90 FR at 42079 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, regarding SEVIS enhancement, DHS notes that SEVIS is being
updated as a result of this rule. DHS will continue to work with
different agency components to ensure that all information related to
SEVIS records is accurate and up to date. DHS agency components are
modifying interfaces to make sure that all relevant data related to the
regulation is available not only to DHS components, but to DoS as well.
b. J-1 Research Scholars and Academic Programs
Comments: Commenters expressed concern about the negative impact
this rule would have on professor and research scholar programs and
academic training programs, including potentially disrupting
collaborative research in various fields. Commenters noted that
requiring exchange visitors in these programs to apply for program
extensions through DHS could jeopardize grant-funded projects, as
continuity of personnel is critical for meeting project timelines and
deliverables. Commenters indicated that postdoctoral programs at
research institutions would be especially impacted, some noting that
domestic postdoctoral scientists typically favor higher-paid positions
outside academia, but highly qualified international postdoctoral
scientists are critical to advancing research, as many of them take
positions in academic settings. Commenter noted that J-1 scholars often
extend short-term research stays, and requiring USCIS approval for each
renewal could delay or disrupt research advancements.
Citing data from 2023, one commenter noted that Ph.D. degrees in
Biological Sciences take an average of 5.8 years to complete.
Additionally, the commenter noted that nonimmigrant visa holders made
up 43 percent of doctoral students in science, engineering, and health,
indicating that a substantial population would be impacted by the
rule.\214\ Relatedly, several UI/UX designers indicated that the rule
would impact design projects, as product cycles--from initial user
research, wireframing, prototyping, to usability testing and final
rollout--could easily span more than four years and foreign students in
multi-stage design-related STEM programs would be required to reapply
for status during critical project milestones, causing interruptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ The commenter referenced National Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics, Survey of Earned Doctorates 2024 (Aug.
2025), Tbl 21, https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/earned-doctorates/2024#data]; see also National Center for Science and Engineering
Statistics, Graduate Enrollment and Postdoctoral Appointments in
Science, Engineering, and Health Rise, Driven Largely by Increases
in the Number of Women and Temporary Visa Holders (Jan. 21, 2025),
Tbl 1, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/
nsf25316#:~:text=Between%202022%20and%202023%2C%20the,Table%20%E2%80%
8B1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A university stated that the rule will increase demand from
universities for H-1B and other visas/status changes, as exchange
visitors would not be able to complete their allowed five years without
applying for an EOS. The university stated that the burden of payment
of the EOS application fee and uncertainty of approval for current J-1
exchange visitors would likely be dismissed in favor of a more stable
status. The university predicted that intended researchers and post-
docs may bypass the J-1 visa completely and opt to apply for H-1B or
another visa for entry to the United States.
Some commenters requested changes to the rule for J-1
nonimmigrants, including an exemption or a longer admission period for
J-1 research scholars, short-term scholars, and professor categories,
stating that these J-1 nonimmigrants participate in programs that run
up to 5 years. Commenters explained that under this rule, these J-1
nonimmigrants would be required to request an EOS for the remaining
year, which could lead to unforeseen troubles for the participants and
require DHS to move quickly in processing these extensions. Similarly,
another commenter asked that DHS specifically ensure that doctoral
students are exempt from any fixed date policies, stating that the
current D/S framework provides the necessary flexibility, efficiency,
and stability for clinical and biomedical research training programs.
Other commenters requested that DHS provide continuation of employment
for J-1 researchers while timely EOS or related adjudications are
pending.
On the other hand, some commenters stated that J nonimmigrants
should be admitted for only the specific program of assignment that
they are involved in. The commenters noted that this period of
admission should not exceed one year, ideally 6-12 months.
Response: DHS appreciates the contributions of J-1 researcher
scholars and reiterates that this rule does not prevent participation
in J-1 exchange programs but rather sets a fixed period of admission
with the opportunity to apply to extend one's stay, if required. As
discussed previously in this section on J nonimmigrants, DHS does not
expect that the rule will discourage or lower J-1 participation or have
a significant impact on J exchange visitor programs. Alternatives to
U.S.-based exchange visitor programs may be more difficult to find in
other countries, providing less of an incentive for nonimmigrants to
choose an alternative. Changing to a different visa category has always
been an option and will continue to be an option; however, an alien and
his or her employer will need to weigh the costs and uncertainty of
approval in those categories against the costs and approvability of an
EOS.
Furthermore, as mentioned previously, DHS declines to adopt the
suggestion that certain populations of students or exchange visitors,
such as research scholars, be exempt from the fixed period of
admission. As explained in the NPRM, DHS has identified troubling
instances of J-1 nonimmigrants abusing the D/S framework and engaging
in fraud and espionage. Therefore, DHS does not intend to exempt any
visa classification from the fixed admission period framework.
c. Summer Work Travel, Intern, Trainee, and Camp Counselor Programs
Comments: Commenters expressed concerns about the impact of the
proposed rule on the J-1 Summer Work Travel (SWT), camp counselor,
intern, trainee, and other short term training programs, which DoS has
already imposed time limitations. With respect to SWT, commenters
stated that SWT is governed by 22 CFR 62.32, which limits participation
to a maximum of 4 months during the student's academic summer break,
with modest extensions. An NGO noted that SWT and camp counselor
programs typically issue DS-2019 Forms that already cover the maximum
duration for their categories; therefore, the rule will primarily
impact the Au Pair, Intern, and Trainee categories. The NGO also noted
that these categories already have a regulatory-mandated maximum
duration, making indefinite extensions under the current D/S framework
impossible. Commentators
[[Page 45055]]
urged DHS to recognize the unique structure of short-term summer
categories such as Camp Counselors and SWT and allow program date and
sponsor adjustments.
Relatedly, commenters also highlighted concerns about the Camp
Counselor program, which limits the admission period to 4 months with
no extensions. See 22 CFR 62.30. One commenter noted that 32,000
international counselors participated in camps across the United
States, indicating that the population impacted by the proposed rule is
significant.\215\ Another commenter requested that DHS clarify whether
camp counselor sponsors may still issue an updated DS-2019 to
accommodate ``in-season adjustments'' within the 4-month term, so long
as the counselor's overall program length does not exceed regulatory
limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ The commenter referenced DoS, Facts and Figures 2015-2024
(July 24,2025), BridgeUSA, https://j1visa.state.gov/facts-and-figures-2015-2024/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters expressed similar concerns about the J-1 Intern
and Trainee programs which currently permit 12 months for interns and
18 months for trainees (22 CFR 62.22). Similarly, commenters expressed
concerns about the impact of the proposed rule on the J-1 Secondary
School Student Program (SSSP), which is regulated by 22 CFR 62.25. The
commenters stated that the proposed rule, if finalized, would create
financial burdens, reduce flexibility, and increase delays for EOS
applications for SSSP participants. A professional association cited
the J-1 SSSP as an example, noting that nearly 20,000 students
participated in SSSP in 2024 under 22 CFR 62.25. The SSSP allows
participants who enroll for one academic semester to extend to a full
academic year through a streamlined, SEVIS-based process that does not
require USCIS involvement. The professional association stated that the
proposed rule would eliminate this flexibility by requiring a full
USCIS extension filing, including a $420 fee, potential biometrics, and
lengthy adjudication.
Response: DHS acknowledges that these changes may result in
additional costs and time for some nonimmigrants. However, DHS and DoS
have made operational changes that will avoid the need for those J-1
visitors on annual agreements from needing to apply for EOS after every
renewal. Sponsors will fill out the Form DS-2019 in more detail, and
the free text field (field 4) will not only list the name of the
program but will now also list the expected completion date of the full
length of the program. Field 3 will continue to list the program end
date, which aligns with the end date of the current agreement. DHS (CBP
and USCIS) will utilize the dates in Field 4 to determine the maximum
duration of the J-1 nonimmigrant's stay up to 4 years subject to
restrictions at 22 CFR part 22. No changes to the regulatory text or
form are required to make this change. It will be accomplished through
training.
DHS recognizes in-season adjustments and other desired changes to
program duration may take place for some J-1 visitors who are admitted
for a short duration, such as camp counselors, interns, trainees, and
students in SSSP. If these visitors would like to remain in the United
States under a J-1 visa for longer than their initial AUD, they will
need to file an application for an EOS. Sponsors cannot make these
adjustments. As discussed in this preamble and in the NPRM, DHS
believes that any burdens and costs to certain J nonimmigrant visitors
is outweighed by the benefits of this rule, which creates a mechanism
for DHS to increase vetting, reduce overstays, and determine whether
nonimmigrants are complying with the conditions of their nonimmigrant
classification. The requirements imposed by this final rule provide the
U.S. government more opportunities to review a nonimmigrant's records,
admissibility, and any possible indicators of fraud, abuse, or national
security concerns. Furthermore, fixed admission periods and filing an
EOS application with USCIS are requirements for most other
nonimmigrants who wish to enter or remain in the United States. DHS
believes that the EOS requirement will allow DHS to vet nonimmigrants
periodically to prevent and reduce issues of fraud, abuse, and national
security threats.
d. Teacher Programs
Comments: Commenters stated the proposed rule is not aligned with
academic calendars and could force teachers to stop working mid-year if
their extension applications are still pending after the 240-day
period. In that regard, a commenter stated that J-1 exchange teachers
should remain authorized until adjudication occurs, even if this
process exceeds 240 days. Furthermore, a commenter noted that the 30-
day grace period is insufficient for teachers to complete end-of-
semester responsibilities such as grading, classroom closure, and
travel preparations.
Another commenter noted that J-1 teachers typically serve in areas
where there are teacher shortages and the proposed rule would further
disrupt areas that are already struggling to retain teachers. The same
commenter noted that the J-1 teaching population is a small part of the
overall J-1 population, but its impact is outsized.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ The commenter referenced Facts and Figures 2015-2024,
supra note 215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A DSO stated the final rule should explicitly exempt J-1 exchange
teachers from duplicative adjudications, reasoning that the DoS
framework already provides layered safeguards through vetting,
monitoring, incident reporting, and capped participation. Incorporating
this exemption directly into the regulatory text would preserve DHS
resources, prevent classroom disruption, and maintain robust security
for a population already subject to intensive oversight.
Response: DHS appreciates this concern and all the changes that
will have to be made to comply with this final rule. However, DHS
declines to allow nonimmigrants presently in the United States to
continue under the D/S framework because this would undermine the
purpose of this rule: to effectively enforce compliance with the
statutory inadmissibility grounds related to unlawful presence and to
mitigate the risks found in the D/S framework. DHS believes these
measures are necessary to protect the integrity of these nonimmigrant
programs. DHS does not believe there will be significant educational
disruptions for students, schools, or any other groups, as the rule
will allow employment and training activities, consistent with the
exchange program, to continue while a properly filed extension request
(which USCIS generally recommends that applicants file within the six
months \217\ preceding the expiration of their stay) is pending for up
to 240 days following the expiration of the applicant's currently
authorized period of stay. Moreover, as described above in General
Impacts on all J-1 Programs, sec. IV.K.1 above, J-1 nonimmigrants may
request that USCIS expedite the adjudication of an application,
including for an EOS, that is under USCIS jurisdiction.\218\ DHS has
determined that the fixed admission periods for up to 4 years would
provide more frequent direct check-in-points for nonimmigrants due to
heightened concerns related to fraud, abuse, and national security
threats. As noted
[[Page 45056]]
elsewhere in the rule, DHS believes that the rule will provide more
clarity and consistency, as the fixed period and EOS requirements are
consistent with how other nonimmigrant categories are admitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ With respect to the earliest filing date for a Form I-539,
there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain date
ahead of expiration.
\218\ See Expedite Requests, supra note 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Two academic groups submitted a joint comment stating
that the current J-1 visa qualifications create a gap in the system by
allowing participation for au pairs and K-12 language teachers but not
for early-education teachers who provide language instruction. The two
academic groups noted that children who begin learning a second
language between birth and seven years old demonstrate advanced
cognitive skills and stated that excluding early education teachers
from the program is illogical given the nationwide shortage of
educators. They asserted that early-education programs across the
country are closing due to inadequate staffing and suggested expanding
the J-1 eligibility to include early-education teachers to help address
this shortage that has become a problem that permeates throughout
American society. The commenters provided publications in support of
their statements.
Response: Early childhood educators are not included in the teacher
regulations. Early childhood educator is a broad term that encompasses
preschools, daycare centers, pre-K, Head Start and kindergartens or
early elementary support roles. This does not meet the definition of
``teacher'' except in the one circumstance outlined in the teacher regs
for immersion programs 62.24(f)(6) `` . . . teach at the pre-
kindergarten level only in a language immersion program offered as
regular course of study by an accredited primary school.''
DHS does not have authority to expand eligibility of J-1 programs
because DoS has that authority. Therefore, comments related to
expanding the J-1 eligibility to include early-education teachers are
outside the scope of this rule.
e. Au Pair Program
Comments: Commenters stated that the proposed rule would negatively
impact J-1 au pairs and American families who rely on them for
childcare. A commenter noted that roughly 70 percent of au pair
participants extend their program length after the first year, most
commonly for 12 additional months. An au pair agency stated the au pair
program extension process should be exempt from the proposed ruling
because au pairs are limited to a maximum stay of two years, never have
J-2 dependents, and are monitored by their host families and by
representatives of the sponsoring agency. A commenter stated that
requiring USCIS EOS applications would more than double the cost from
$367 to over $800 due to additional filing fees, biometrics, and
processing charges and, in many cases, host families would be required
to pay these costs, raising the price of participation in an au pair
program for working and middle-class families.
Separately, a commenter provided recommendations for the au pair
program as follows: that DHS should consider the Bureau of Educational
and Cultural Affairs' (ECA's) extension approval transmitted via SEVIS
as sufficient for the EOS (no separate Form I-539 application); that if
a separate Form I-539 application is required, DHS should commit to a
30-day adjudication period for au pairs to preserve continuity for U.S.
families; that DHS should confirm the DoS authority to issue a DS-2019
for the maximum period of 2 years so that au pairs can receive a 2-year
J-1 visa, subject to ECA's current 1-year review process to determine
program eligibility for the second year; that DHS should exempt the au
pair program administered by ECA from the scope of the final rule.
Response: DHS acknowledges the additional cost to nonimmigrant au
pairs because of the EOS filing process. Because the cost of an EOS
request is small, relative to the overall cost of participation, DHS
does not expect this rule to be cost prohibitive. The final rule will
impose incremental costs on all J visas, including nonimmigrant au
pairs, but will in turn protect the integrity of the J program by
having immigration officers evaluate and assess the appropriate length
of stay for these nonimmigrants. DHS anticipates that J-1 au pairs will
continue to participate in the program and the benefits to American
families utilizing the au pair program will continue in the long run.
DHS disagrees that using ECA as the oversight process for the J-1
au pair program would be an effective mechanism to prevent fraud and
abuse of the nation's immigration system. Generally, DHS does not have
the authority to delegate its immigration responsibilities to other
departments, even where the au pair program is concerned. As previously
mentioned, DoS and DHS processes and systems are necessarily different
due to the unique responsibilities of the two departments. The
processes established in this rule provide DHS with mechanisms to deter
and prevent fraud related to DHS's immigration enforcement
responsibilities, and therefore, is necessary to implement.
Furthermore, after reviewing the comment, DoS has informed DHS that it
does not intend to permit sponsors to issue a DS-2019 beyond the
existing 1-year maximum. The initial process for obtaining an extension
of the 1-year maximum continues to be the same as always. The host
families will need to utilize the current DoS process to obtain
permission to extend the program. However, now the au pair will need to
apply for an extension with USCIS or travel abroad and be readmitted
for the new period by CBP after DoS approves the program extension and
issues a new DS-2019.The new DS-2019 will be submitted to USCIS along
with the EOS application.
L. Comments To Enhance SEVIS and Agency Communication
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that the current
SEVIS system is unprepared to implement initiatives in the proposed
rule and that necessary modifications to the system may not be
possible. Specifically, commenters raised concerns about the SEVIS
system citing a history of outages, technical failures, and overall,
the system is unreliable, inaccurate, and may be missing data from
other systems. Furthermore, commenters raised concerns about the SEVIS
systems ability and readiness, its need for technical updates,
reliability and capacity to handle additional processing requirements,
and the risk of errors. A commenter stated that significant technical
updates would need to be made to SEVIS and pointed to existing problems
with Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS)
failing to update information from USCIS to SEVIS as an example that
would need to be improved. Commenters noted that information flows
between USCIS and SEVIS regarding EOS requests, status changes, and
employment authorizations often fail to transfer correctly, adversely
affecting students' and exchange visitors' program status. Commenters
also cited the need for costly redesigns, software integrations, and
new protocols to ensure data accuracy.
Commenters recommended system improvements in SEVIS, such as
upgrading fraud prevention measures with real-time tracking and data
integration, biometric integration, targeted investigations for high-
risk cases real-time, and improvements of the data flow between other
government systems and SEVIS. Another commenter stated that meaningful
implementation of the capability to track fixed
[[Page 45057]]
admission end dates, support dynamic program transitions, or capture
the academic and employment metadata in SEVIS would require redesigns
and new interagency protocols to ensure data accuracy and suggested it
would result in greater delays, reduced accountability, and raise the
risk of unintentional status violations.
Many commenters proposed improvements to the SEVIS system with
regard to extensions. One commenter cited to DHS's website \219\ to
indicate the SEVIS system currently only allows one-year extensions at
a time and stated that would need to be remedied but did not state why.
One commenter suggested SEVIS functionality should be extended to
connect to a school's certification of the Form I-17 and an alert be
triggered when a program extension is entered for a student beyond the
stated time to completion, while another commenter proposed changing
the regulations so that SEVIS actions related to extensions, change-of-
program, change-of-level, transfers and other functions require SEVP
adjudication similar to how correction requests are currently handled
in the SEVIS system. Another commenter recommended allowing additional
functionality to DSOs to upload any evidence for extensions into a
SEVIS location that could be adjudicated by or accessible to DHS as
needed, while another commenter suggested ICE could increase the number
of agents it has monitoring SEVIS or alter the system as needed to
adjust for the increase in active records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ DHS, Extending the F-1 Form I-20 (last updated May 19,
2025), https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/sevis-help-hub/student-records/manage-program-dates-registration-and-course-load/extending-the-f-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the updates needed in the SEVIS system due to the rule,
several commenters emphasized that the time it could take to implement
such updates could result in disruption for universities and foreign
students. One commenter stated that because DHS is proposing to include
a provision whereby DHS may delay or suspend implementation of the
proposal due to technical issues, imposing the rule nationwide is
premature and unworkable as it would create confusion and arbitrary
outcomes for students and schools. Another commenter remarked that
training requirements for adjudicating officers, university staff, and
federal workers on possible system updates to SEVIS as well as updates
to the I-539 and instructions would create implementation challenges
that DHS has not adequately addressed.
In addition, several commenters raised concerns with respect to how
I-94 data collection could affect SEVIS data, including inputting I-94
Arrival Record data incorrectly into the SEVIS system or the absence of
the data entirely. Specifically, one commenter cited to a report to
Congress \220\ and voiced concern that travel data collected in ADIS
could result in a person having multiple active and inactive records in
SEVIS resulting in difficulty to determine if a person is in valid
status. A commenter proposed enhancing the SEVIS system by
strengthening data integrity through ensuring data like the I-94
Arrival Record is inputted into SEVIS correctly to avoid discrepancies
and including a field for DSOs to report potential or suspected
fraudulent activity. A couple of commenters recommended safeguards
against errors, including instituting a visible I-94 expiration field
in each SEVIS record that could be accessed by a designated sponsor,
batch alerts for upcoming expirations, and a direct communication
channel with CBP for schools and sponsors to fix I-94 entries quickly
and prevent avoidable violations. A commenter recommended that SEVIS
should be updated to include the Form I-94 ``Admit Until Date,'' and
USCIS and CBP procedures should be updated so status end date data can
be inputted and maintained accurately. The commenter stated that CBP
would likely need to increase staffing to accommodate the increased
workload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ Entry/Exit Overstay Report Fiscal Year 2024, supra note
123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatedly, some commenters expressed concerns regarding data
transfer between different agencies and their systems and how agencies
and systems would work together to ensure a smooth transition.
Commenters expressed concern over data fragmentation due to moving from
automatic updates under SEVIS to manual USCIS adjudications, stating
that the rule does not enhance the government's goals for security and
efficiency, but instead creates bureaucracy, wastes tax-payer money,
decreases efficiency, and increases the amount of visa paperwork for
the government, visa sponsors, and universities. In that regard,
commenters suggested improving data flow between different government
systems and ensuring accuracy in SEVIS rather than requiring students
to undergo lengthy extension processes. Another commenter urged
increasing surveillance or adding reporting requirements in SEVIS while
implementing a better system of communication between CBP, SEVIS, and
USCIS in lieu of upending the current system.
Several commenters proposed other alternative recommendations and
solutions in lieu of the proposed rule. Some commenters suggested
allowing SEVP-certified schools to extend admission in SEVIS for
students in good academic standing; creating standards-based
continuations tied to SEVIS verification to avoid mass EOS filings;
automatically approving extensions certified by Principal DSOs or ROs
unless flagged for review; accepting DSO certification as the primary
evidence for eligibility while limiting the number of times a DSO can
create a program extension before the student has to apply to USCIS for
an extension; and having SEVIS issue RFEs regarding EOS applications
that warrant priority review. Another commenter recommended requiring
schools to upload supporting documentation when extending I-20s in
SEVIS in a similar way to uploading a I-983 training plan for F-1
students in STEM OPT and utilizing the data reported in SEVIS to
identify students at risk of overstay in place of eliminating D/S.
Separately, a commenter proposed expedited processing for EOS so that
students can get decisions quickly; approving extensions in multi-year
increments; and providing a 30-day grace period after an extension
denial so a student can depart in an orderly fashion. Another
alternative proposal to the rule included deploying an AI system with
predicative analytics capabilities and integration with security
databases for comprehensive threat assessment coupled with improved
stakeholder communication to include real time compliance alerts to
school officials and a mobile application with real time status updates
and compliance reminders for students. That same commenter proposed
streamlining information management systems through the creation of
unified portals for immigration status updates to eliminate duplicate
reporting requirements. Lastly, another commenter recommended all
educational institutions hosting students and exchange visitors utilize
E-Verify because this would remove potential employment avenues for
workers without authorization.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' proposals for SEVIS
improvements, and these comments offer valuable information for any
future enhancements. But DHS believes that the provisions in the rule
can be implemented in SEVIS and are sufficient and adequate to provide
the
[[Page 45058]]
additional protections and mechanisms needed to exercise oversight and
enhance the integrity of these nonimmigrant programs. DHS seeks to
address vulnerabilities in the current program, which have resulted in
fraud, abuse, and national security threats, and it is for these
reasons that DHS is making these specific changes in this rule.
Notably, DHS has been working with different agency components to
ensure that all information related to SEVIS records is accurate and up
to date. DHS has conducted a thorough review of all government system
functionalities to document the modifications necessary to ensure the
system's stability and compliance with the regulations and to address
the commenters' concerns. DHS has been actively engaged in identifying,
updating and planning the changes needed to implement this rule,
including form updates, training, and the shifting of resources to
accommodate this rule. DHS agency components are modifying interfaces
to make sure that all relevant data related to the regulation is
available. As further system modifications for SEVIS are implemented,
SEVIS users will be updated via Broadcast Messages and Release Planning
Guides once the changes have occurred. If a discrepancy in SEVIS data
occurs, DHS should be notified through the SEVP Response Center
immediately so that the necessary steps can be taken to correct the
discrepancy and ensure the accuracy of the students' SEVIS record.
DHS acknowledges that the changes and updates in SEVIS could
increase departmental responsibilities and resource needs. At this
time, however, DHS believes the current resource allocations for SEVIS
operations and maintenance are sufficient and will continue to work
with partner agencies to maintain data accuracy and reliability.
Moreover, DHS will continue to ensure that all relevant data, including
accurate I-94 information, is available. The changes in SEVIS will
provide schools and programs with tools to identify and manage students
and exchange visitors needing extensions of stay. To be clear, the rule
does not transfer tracking responsibilities from SEVIS to USCIS or CBP;
SEVIS remains the primary system for tracking F and J nonimmigrants.
USCIS will take on a greater role in adjudicating EOS and vetting
compliance, and CBP will continue to vet arriving nonimmigrants
utilizing the information in SEVIS. The information CBP utilizes to
inspect if the alien is admissible, is the same information that is
contained in SEVIS as part of the student's record. When CBP inspects a
student who traveled outside of the United States, CBP may issue a new
I-94 reflecting the completion date of the studies/program plus 30
days; or in the case of an alien who meets the requirements of 22 CFR
41.112(d) (automatic visa revalidation), CBP will update the I-94
record to reflect the completion date of studies plus 30 days. CBP is
not expected to increase workload due to nonimmigrants choosing to
travel, as the inspection of returning F and J nonimmigrants is part of
the current CBP inspectional workload and as nonimmigrants may not want
to incur travel costs associated with this option.
DHS recognizes that ROs and DSOs play an integral role in the
management of nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors. For this
reason, DHS has anticipated the need for school and sponsor officials
to see data pertaining to nonimmigrants' period of lawful admission.
SEVIS will be modified to display the AUD associated with a Form I-94
on SEVIS records. Additionally, the system will provide school and
sponsor officials with tools to aid in the management of nonimmigrant
periods of lawful admission, including specific alert lists of
nonimmigrants with upcoming AUD expirations. CBP.govhas guidance for
correcting the I-94.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ CBP, I-94 Official website--Help, https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/help (last visited Feb. 19, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While DSOs play a key role in managing nonimmigrant students, DHS
declines to allow DSOs, ROs, and SEVP-certified schools to adjudicate
extensions of stay (as opposed to extension of programs, which they
will continue to do). DHS maintains that USCIS officers are best
positioned to determine eligibility for status extensions, as they have
the necessary training, background checks, and security clearances
before being authorized to adjudicate EOS applications. Only
immigration officers can adjudicate EOS applications and make legal
determinations about status and admissibility.
Lastly, with respect to E-Verify, DHS considered but ultimately
decided not to require all educational institutions hosting students
and exchange visitors to use E-Verify in this rule. DHS believes that
the provisions of this rule are sufficient to accomplish the intended
goals of the rule. Furthermore, it is outside the scope of this
rulemaking to incorporate the implementation of E-Verify.
Comments: A commenter expressed concern about Form I-94 data
integration with SEVIS, explaining DSOs and AROs would need real-time
visibility to accurate information since compliance would depend on
Form I-94 end dates. Commenters questioned the quality of data,
explaining that SEVIS is document-centric while the ADIS is person-
centric, creating challenges in data gathering. They warned that if
only SEVIS is consulted for compliance data, and if status changes are
not properly reflected in the system, incomplete or incorrect data
might be considered in decision-making.
Response: DHS clarifies that the I-94 end date derives from the
SEVIS Form I-20 plus the 30-day departure period. The I-94 will
transition from ``D/S'' to a fixed end date. SEVIS notifies CBP of any
changes to the student's status. The connection between ADIS/I-94 and
SEVIS supports near real-time data transmission and ensures consistency
across traveler status and student program status.
Comments: Commenters stated that USCIS currently has over 11
million pending applications \222\ with delays reaching up to 18
months.\223\ Regarding the new EOS requirements in the rule, one
commenter stated that it would not make sense for USCIS to take on more
work when it cannot handle its current caseload.\224\ One commenter
noted that there are already extensive delays from USCIS for I-17
updates, OPT applications, and more, and the proposed rule would only
increase wait times. Specifically, one commenter added that there would
be an ``avalanche'' of new filings, and, even if there were 500,000 new
filings, there could be $200 million in extra costs annually due to
staff and overhead. Another stated that the proposed rule would require
approximately 2,400 additional adjudication officers to handle 1.2
million annual extension applications, and with training,
infrastructure, and quality assurance, the costs would likely approach
$2.3 billion over ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ Commenters referenced Rahman, B. and Goodling, D., US
Immigration Backlog Hits All-Time High, Newsweek (July 8, 2025),
https://www.newsweek.com/us-immigration-backlog-hits-all-time-high-2095846; National Association of Foreign Student Advisers, Duration
of Status Explainer, supra note 136.
\223\ Commenters referenced Duration of Status Explainer, supra
note 136.
\224\ The commenter referenced Kanno-Youngs, Z. and Aleaziz, H.,
ICE Set to Vastly Expand Its Reach with New Funds, New York Times
(July 12, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/12/us/politics/ice-expansion-concerns.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: While the rule may increase USCIS processing times, DHS
believes the benefits of increased oversight outweigh these concerns.
[[Page 45059]]
Requiring EOS applications will improve consistency across nonimmigrant
categories, strengthen oversight, and enhance enforcement of
immigration laws, including statutory inadmissibility grounds related
to unlawful presence. USCIS will continue to monitor its resource
allocations and make adjustments as appropriate.
M. Addressing Change of Status and Program Duration
1. Changing Classifications
Comments: Commenters also requested clearer guidance or
explanations about the proposed processes. Commenters said that the
proposed rule does not explain or address how time spent in a different
nonimmigrant status, before changing to F or J nonimmigrant status,
would be treated or impacted by the proposed rule. A commenter also
asked how time enrolled in F-1 status would impact a nonimmigrant
student's options if they spent time in F status for a portion of their
academic program but then moved to a different status before completion
of their program. An example was given where an undergraduate student
beginning a bachelor's degree as a freshman in H-4 status then later
changing to F-1 status during their junior year, and posed the
questions, ``are they immediately eligible to change major or transfer
schools since it is not their first year of the academic program or are
they subject to the restriction since it is their first year in F-1
status? How does time enrolled in F-1 or J-1 status impact a student's
options if they are only in F/J status for a portion of their academic
program and they are in a different status by the time they graduate?''
The commenter also stated that the proposed rule does not address if or
how the Form I-515A admission process would change.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' concerns and notes that
if an individual was previously in the United States under another
nonimmigrant classification (e.g., B-2 visitor, H-4 dependent) and then
changes status to F or J, the individual may be admitted for up to the
length of their program listed on the Form I-20 or Form DS-2019, or
successor form, not to exceed a period of 4 years plus 30 days for
departure. If the individual is an F-1 student at any level below the
graduate degree level, unless an exception is authorized by SEVP for
extenuating circumstances, the individual is eligible to change major
or transfer schools only after they have completed their first academic
year of a program of study in F-1 status at the school that initially
issued their Form I-20 or successor form. An F-1 student's program of
study is considered to begin on the program start date listed on their
Form I-20, even if the student has been continuously enrolled under
another visa classification. If they change from F or J to another
status before completing their program, just as under the D/S system,
the universities, program sponsors, and, in the case of J-1s, DoS will
need to decide whether the nonimmigrant can continue in the program
based on the new status acquired. For example, if an F-1 or J-1
nonimmigrant converts to an H-1B, all F-1 or J-1 activities must cease.
However, if they convert to a legal permanent resident based on
marriage to a U.S. citizen, studies at a university can continue, but
specific DoS sponsored programs may need to cease because of their
specific cultural exchange requirements. Just as is the current
practice, these cases will be decided on an individual basis given very
specific and individualized facts. DHS does not anticipate a change in
the issuance and processing of the Form I-515A, ``Notice to Student or
Exchange Visitor''. Currently, CBP has the discretion to issue Form I-
515A and temporarily admit a F, M, J nonimmigrant if the nonimmigrant
is missing documentation to establish eligibility for admission under
section 101(a)(15) of the INA. If a Form I-515A has been issued, SEVP
will continue to work with CBP to verify the student or exchange
visitor eligibility for full admission, which is the period necessary
to complete the course of study indicated on the Form I-20, or
successor form, not to exceed a period of 4 years, plus 30 days.
2. Transfer Processes, SEVIS Records, and Campus Reassignments
Comments: Commenters noted that the proposed rule did not
adequately address the transfer-in and transfer-out processes that
students and exchange visitors must follow when moving between
institutions and request clarification on how transfers between
campuses within the same institution would be handled. Commenters are
particularly concerned about when campuses operate under different
SEVIS school codes despite sharing the same governance structure.
Specifically, commenters reported student athletes can transfer during
an allotted time during the winter and spring period if in good
academic standing but international students would not be able to
transfer and compete like their domestic counterparts if this rule is
implemented. Commenters questioned whether student movement between
campuses would constitute a disallowed ``program change'' and sought
guidance on SEVIS code considerations, state-line moves, I-20 updates,
reporting timelines, and EOS requirements.
Several questions were raised about SEVP and SEVIS records,
including whether students could depart the United States and return
with a new SEVIS identification to pursue a program at a lateral or
lower educational level, whether students with foreign master's degrees
would be barred from obtaining one in the United States, and whether
the limits on lateral and reverse matriculation were lifetime limits.
Commenters also expressed concern about the reference to transfer
procedures for change of education level procedures, noting that the
SEVIS processes for transferring records between schools and updating
records with education level changes are fundamentally different.
One commenter remarked that the concept of an ``educational
objective'' covering majors, programs, and degree levels is new to DHS
and expressed concern about implementation challenges if SEVIS systems
cannot accommodate these changes. Another commenter stated the need for
a clear definition of ``repeated changes'' to facilitate appropriate
advising and consistent application of the rule by DSOs, suggesting it
be defined as a specific number of changes within a specific timeframe.
Additionally, commenters requested clarification on existing provisions
that make F-1 students ineligible to change programs or transfer
schools when not pursuing a full course of study, as well as whether a
single term of academic probation would render a student ineligible for
an extension.
Response: DHS outlines the transfer procedures in new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(8)(ii), which largely remains consistent with existing
processes and the proposal in the NPRM. Changes were made to the
proposed language for clarity. DHS does not consider movements between
campuses, that is, between instructional sites listed under a singular
Form I-17 petition, to constitute a transfer or change in educational
objective for the purposes of this rule. Transfers between campuses on
the same Form I-17 will be reclassified as campus reassignments.
Within SEVIS, DHS plans to introduce functionality that will allow
students to be reassigned from one campus to another within a certified
Form I-17. However, this functionality will not permit reassignments
between schools with separate Forms I-17. As these modifications are
implemented,
[[Page 45060]]
SEVIS users will be updated, as needed, via Broadcast Messages and
Release Planning Guides once the changes have occurred.
These provisions are intended to address concerns regarding
students repeatedly enrolling in the same program of study to maintain
F-1 status. DHS does not believe these provisions impose lifetime
restrictions or outright prohibitions. Instead, they provide DHS
officials with the discretion to determine that an F-1 student is not
maintaining status or is ineligible for admission in F-1 status if the
student enrolls in a program at the same or lower educational level
without a valid cause.
DHS recognizes commenters' concerns about international student
athletes transferring. The primary purpose of an international student
athlete is to successfully complete one's academic program. Student
athletes are subject to the same rules that govern all F-1 students.
Flexibility does remain within the updated transfer process once an F-1
student in good standing has completed one academic year of a program
of study at the school that issued their I-20. Undergraduate students
seeking to transfer to another school or change their educational
objectives during their first year of study still retain flexibility in
having their cases reviewed by DHS, which may then authorize the change
in educational objective or school transfer if an exception is
warranted.
DHS disagrees with the concept that using educational objectives to
address the type of school, program of study, and degree levels are
new. Federal regulations, 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6), require students to make
progress towards a completion of their ``educational or professional''
objective, which DHS has always interpreted to be the program
information, including school location, major, and educational level,
on the student's Form I-20.
Regarding implementation challenges in SEVIS, DHS has identified
the necessary changes that will be needed to accommodate the provisions
of this rule. For up to two years from the effective date of this rule,
DHS may suspend the implementation of new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A)
through (C), in its discretion, if it determines that implementation is
infeasible for any reason.
Under new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(i)(C)(2)(i), an EOS may be granted
under certain situations, but delays including, but not limited to,
those caused by academic probation or suspension or a student's
repeated inability or unwillingness to complete his or her course of
study are not acceptable reasons for a program extension.
3. Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) Code Updates and
Graduate Program Changes
Comments: Commenters expressed significant concern about how
updates to CIP codes would be handled under the proposed restrictions.
They questioned whether non-substantive CIP updates would trigger a
barred ``program change,'' require an EOS filing, or jeopardize a
student's legal status. One commenter described a scenario where an
institutional CIP code update would require DSOs to receive permission
from SEVP for all bachelor's students and require master's and Ph.D.
students to depart the United States and reapply for admission with
updated I-20 forms, characterizing this as unnecessarily burdensome.
Commenters suggested alternative approaches, recommending that DHS
focus on specific CIP codes in sensitive knowledge areas rather than
imposing blanket restrictions. They argued that graduate studies are
typically highly specialized, making drastic program changes unlikely,
and that measures could be implemented to review significant changes at
the graduate level. Commenters warned that the proposal would
unnecessarily prohibit minor shifts in focus for non-sensitive areas
and noted that existing measures, such as National Security
Presidential Memorandum-33, already protect sensitive knowledge from
foreign government interference.
Response: DHS developed SEVIS to accommodate the designation of a
program of study by identifying its corresponding CIP code on Form I-
20. DSOs must select the appropriate CIP code associated with the
student's major. If the curriculum aligns with more than one CIP code,
the CIP code that most closely matches the program's content should be
selected.
If a school updates a CIP code to a currently approved program of
study on the school's Form I-17, DHS will collaborate with the
university to update the records of all affected students. DHS does not
consider such updates to constitute a change in educational objectives.
Furthermore, DHS believes that restrictions on changes at the graduate
level support the goals of National Security Presidential Memorandum-
33, which aims to protect U.S. research from foreign exploitation.
4. Recommendations and Alternatives
Comments: Commenters presented various recommendations such as
continue D/S ``as is'' to setting limits on transfers and programmatic
changes or DHS does not move forward with implementing the restriction
as proposed. Commenters suggested DHS find a balance between concerns
about student educational progress and the legitimate need of certain
F-1 students to complete additional courses of study, implement
``reasonable'' limits on academic changes such as one transfer within
the United States, one change of major, and one change of degree level
rather than strict prohibitions, and DHS to provide more flexibility
for students to change educational programs if the program is listed on
an institution's I-17 and advance notice is provided to SEVP for
monitoring purposes.
Commenters suggested that DHS require all school transfers or
changes in educational programs at the same or lower level be reviewed
by SEVP or permit graduate students to change majors or concentrations
with DSO approval. Commenters also suggested allowing transfers for
specific reasons similar to reduced course load or economic hardship
eligibility criteria, limiting the number of transfers per academic
level, permitting reduced course loads and transfers for students who
discover they have been placed in the wrong level, requiring minimum
enrollment periods before transfer eligibility, and exempting ordinary
in-program progress and same-degree level transfers from EOS
requirements when DSOs certify continued full-time study.
Commenters proposed numerical limitations on lateral or reverse
matriculations, such as allowing students to change majors once within
a degree level, setting a lifetime limit of completing two programs at
each educational level, allowing one extra lateral and reverse
matriculation for each student, or implementing the proposed 2020
approach for numerical limits.
Others suggested specific exceptions for educational pathways, such
as adopting clear carve-outs for recognized bona fide pathways backed
by market practice or licensure, including JD to LL.M. specialization
and executive or professional Master of Business Administration (MBA)
programs. Finally, one commenter suggested prohibiting CPT and OPT
authorization for students pursuing a second degree at the same level
rather than an outright prohibition on second degrees.
Response: DHS appreciates commenters' suggestions on alternative
[[Page 45061]]
limits to academic changes; however, DHS believes that these
restrictions ensure that foreign students studying in the United States
are bona fide and pursuing legitimate academic goals. If DHS determines
later on these provisions are infeasible, DHS will delay or suspend
these provisions by publication of a notice on the Federal Register and
an announcement on SEVP's website at https://www.studyinthestates.dhs.gov (or successor uniform resource locator).
DHS appreciates various recommendations provided by commenters
regarding proposed restrictions on school transfers and changes in
educational objectives for F-1 students. The intent of these
restrictions is to address concerns related to fraud, abuse, and
national security risks, including ``pay-to-stay'' schemes and
misrepresentation of academic intent. These measures are designed to
ensure that F-1 students maintain genuine academic progress and do not
use repeated transfers or program changes to unduly extend their stay
in the United States.
DHS recognizes the importance of supporting legitimate educational
pathways and acknowledges the need for flexibility in certain
circumstances, such as recognized bona fide educational tracks,
graduate program specializations, and market-driven licensure
requirements. DHS will provide updated guidance to clarify the
application of these restrictions, particularly for graduate programs
and specialized educational pathways.
Regarding the proposal to prohibit CPT and OPT authorization for
students pursuing a second degree at the same educational level, DHS
does not believe this approach will help mitigate potential abuse this
rule seeks to prevent. F-1 students are already permitted 12 months of
OPT at each educational level.
Comments: Commenters called for DHS to look at alternatives
previously recommended by the GAO. A commenter noted that GAO had never
called for ending D/S to manage the risk of fraud.\225\ Commenters
noted a GAO report \226\ which found redundancies between USCIS
adjudications and SEVIS and recommended enhanced training for DSOs. One
commenter also looked to GAO reports \227\ in conjunction with the
NAFSA conference in May 2025 \228\ to recommend training for DSOs and
ARO; formalizing training between DHS and DoS; sending out email blasts
or biannual webinars; and revitalizing the SEVIS II project.\229\
Another commenter called for targeted enforcement for sensitive fields
due to a 2022 report from GAO which called for tweaks to SEVIS due to
tech risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ The commenter referenced GAO-19-297, supra note 73 and GAO
23-106114, supra note 83.
\226\ Commenters referenced GAO-19-297, supra note 73.
\227\ Commenters referenced GAO-19-297, supra note 73; GAO 23-
106114, supra note 83.
\228\ The commenter referenced sessions offered at this NAFSA
conference. No written source was cited.
\229\ The commenter referenced ICE, IT Program Assessment ICE-
Student & Exchange Visitor Information System II (SEVIS II) Program
(2010), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/mgmt/itpa-ice-sevisii2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS acknowledges that GAO has not recommended ending D/S
as a means to manage fraud risk and has provided other alternatives, as
discussed by commenters. DHS always takes GAO's recommendations to
heart and has, over the years, considered their recommendations and
implemented many of their suggestions whether directly in the SEVIS
system or through policy. However, in addition to all of those changes,
DHS has also chosen to address concerns about fraud, abuse, and
national security for F, J, and I nonimmigrants with this final rule
for the reasons articulated herein.
Comments: Commenters called for DHS to strengthen SEVIS enforcement
and compliance audits at schools. One commenter called for D/S to stay
in place for Ph.D. and long-duration programs, but for DHS to apply
fixed terms to short-term programs or high-risk categories. On the
other hand, another commenter proposed enhanced vetting for students
beginning a Ph.D. in a sensitive field, who are funded by the federal
government, or who are applying for post-graduation work authorization.
The commenter proffered that this would ``ensur[e] a thorough review
that prevents technological theft, without harming the educational
process.'' Another called for an automatic screening process once a DSO
submits an extension or program transfer request in SEVIS, and for
administrative agencies to review if there is a suspicious or irregular
request, such as frequent extensions or uncommon program transfers.
Commenters also called for the government to use its resources on
alternatives focused on alleviating risk factors. One commenter called
for ``a risk-based, data-driven approach--using SEVIS analytics to flag
outlier patterns (e.g., abnormal same-level program hopping, excessive
language-training tenure, late terminations, unusually low completion
rates)--[which] would direct site visits, out-of-cycle reviews, and
sanctions to the small minority of institutions that generate most
compliance concerns. Graduated remedies, such as mandatory corrective
action plans, temporary limits on issuing new I-20/DS-2019s, DSO/RO
retraining, and, where warranted, withdrawal of certification, would
fix the problem at its source.'' Another commenter called for
``implementing algorithmic risk assessment tools that flag unusual
pattern deviations, mandatory biennial compliance certifications for
institutions, and streamlined digital extension processes for
legitimate program extensions.'' A commenter recommended establishing a
``risk-stratified monitoring system'' that would enhance certainty for
students at institutions with strong compliance record, implement
blockchain-based continuous verification systems like the e-Residency
program in Estonia, and create streamlined pathways that automatically
update based on a program's accreditation and an individual's academic
progress.
Other commenters suggested automatic extensions for high performer
students who meet GPA and progress benchmarks. One commenter also
looked to an alternative that would focus specifically on fields of
study where students in non-sensitive fields would keep the same D/S
framework, while critical STEM research fields would have mandated,
``enhanced'' check-ins with their university DSOs.
One commenter called for a solution where admission would align
with ``school-approved I-20 or DS-2019 extension[s] so that people are
not forced into travel or separate DHS filings solely because a project
timeline shifted.'' The commenter further advocated for guaranteed
processing times, ``[r]outine timing adjustments for bona fide cases
[which] should carry low or no fees and receive deference to prior
approvals when the underlying eligibility has not changed,'' and
standardizing grace periods and travel flexibility to avoid travel
during exam windows, field seasons, or newsroom deadlines.
Several commenters opined on the creation of certain pathways or
programs for students or schools. Commenters supported creating a
streamlined lawful permanent resident pathway for graduates in fields
where there is a critical shortage, including in STEM. Another called
for expedited processing tracks for STEM fields and critical areas
identified by the Department of Labor. One commenter called for
``trusted institution''
[[Page 45062]]
pathways for universities who have a history of excellent compliance.
For research specifically, one commenter called for the government
to create formal partnerships with major research funding agencies, and
the formation of a ``Research Excellence Track'' for students which
would have advanced vetting protocols for sensitive fields. For STEM
research, one commenter advocated for a new program that would allow D/
S for STEM fields that exceeded four years, ``create digital-first
extension processes to reduce administrative burden, and develop
outcome-based metrics focusing on program completion rather than
arbitrary time limits.'' Commenters also called for reciprocal
agreements with partner countries so that researchers could travel
across borders to enhance the position of the United States in
academia.
Some commenters also proposed solutions for more targeted issues.
One commenter called for a solution that would focus specifically on
countries that had high overstay rates. Another commenter called for a
limit to the number of program extensions, such as one or two times,
before a student would be required to apply to USCIS. A commenter
advocated for a regional approach where there would be ``enhanced data
sharing between SEVIS, state workforce agencies, and regional economic
develop organizations.'' A commenter also looked to financial issues
and promoted a plan where credits from recent work authorization fees
would be applied to EOS requests, fees would be reduced due to hardship
and would be tied to graduate assistant stipends, and EOS and work
authorization fees would be combined so that individuals are not
charged twice for related benefits.
Response: DHS thanks the commenters for all of the suggestions and
possible solutions to the national security and fraud issues raised in
the NPRM. Though none of them could replace a federal immigration
officer periodically reviewing whether a nonimmigrant is maintaining
status, DHS has taken note of these suggestions for possible
enhancements in the future. The existing D/S framework allows F and J
nonimmigrants to remain in the United States for as long as they
maintain their status, without a fixed end date. DHS found this system
vulnerable to abuse, difficult to monitor, and challenging for
enforcement, as it does not require regular review of status or timely
updates to records. While SEVIS and school officials (DSOs/ROs) play a
key role in monitoring compliance, DHS determined that relying
exclusively on these mechanisms does not provide adequate federal
oversight or control. There are limitations in data accuracy, reporting
timeliness, and the ability to detect long-term overstays or status
violations.
Proposals to allow longer initial stays or more flexible extensions
were considered but rejected because they would not sufficiently
address concerns about program integrity, national security, and the
ability to prevent overstays. DHS considered increasing enforcement of
existing rules without changing the underlying structure. However, this
approach was deemed insufficient due to resource constraints and the
inherent limitations of the D/S model, which lacks clear triggers for
enforcement action. DHS concluded that clear, finite periods of
authorized stay are necessary for effective management.
DHS determined that alternatives such as maintaining D/S, relying
solely on SEVIS/school oversight, allowing more flexibility, or
increasing enforcement without rule change are insufficient because
they do not adequately address concerns about compliance, national
security, and program integrity. The rule aims to establish clear,
enforceable limits to improve oversight and reduce abuse.
N. I Nonimmigrants
1. Support
Comments: A commenter endorsed the proposed changes regarding I
nonimmigrants, stating that clearer definitions and stricter
documentation requirements would ensure that I nonimmigrants are
engaged in legitimate journalistic activities. I visa reform is
necessary to prevent misuse of the visa category according to this
commenter.
Response: DHS agrees that the finalized changes to the I
nonimmigrant classification are necessary to prevent misuse and ensure
that I nonimmigrants are engaged in legitimate journalistic activities.
2. Purpose and Need
Comments: Commenters stated that the NPRM did not cite any evidence
that I-nonimmigrants pose a risk to national security and assert that
the government did not provide other reasons or interests to support
this change for I-nonimmigrants. Another commenter stated the only
reason DHS gives for asserting that the term is appropriate is that it
mirrors the automatic extension provided to I visa-holders whose
current visa would otherwise expire because they intend to change
mediums or employers. The commenter adds that it is illogical to think
that the 240-day time intended for the government to determine whether
an applicant is eligible for a visa is also enough time for the
applicant to complete the activities the visa is intended to support.
Citing 85 FR 27646, the commenter adds that the proposal is also
inconsistent with the Department's previous view that visa terms of
less than a year, coupled with the specter of non-renewal, can amount
to ``hostile measures targeting a free press'' because of their
disruptive effect on journalists' work.
Response: With respect to I nonimmigrant visas, DHS recognizes the
lack of public data cited in the proposed rule regarding fraud and
overstays specific to I nonimmigrants. DHS notes that internal exit
data show that the vast majority of I nonimmigrants stay for less than
240 days.\230\ Therefore, for the I visa, this is an appropriate
maximum timeframe. However, DHS disagrees with the general premise of
these comments. The vulnerabilities generally associated with the D/S
admission are not unique to F and J nonimmigrant classifications, and
the lack of public data for the I nonimmigrant classification does not
mean that the vulnerabilities are absent for that classification. As
explained in the preamble of the NPRM and in this final rule, one of
the goals of this proposed rule is to strengthen vetting and
information collection and help immigration officers ensure that the I
nonimmigrants are, and will be, engaged in activities that are
permissible under INA 101(a)(15)(I), and do not pose national security
issues (in addition to the F and J nonimmigrant classifications). As
previously mentioned, DHS believes that admitting aliens temporarily in
the United States for a fixed period will encourage aliens to maintain
lawful status and prevent or reduce instances in which nonimmigrants
unlawfully remain in the United States after their activities or
assignments end. Through the EOS process, this rule takes both a
proactive approach to prevent violations as well as a reactive approach
to detect any ongoing violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ DHS data shows that 94.6 percent of I's with confirmed
exit data stay less than 240 days. Based on DHS's analysis of ADIS
data identifying length of stay of I-visa holders between 2015 and
2024, valid as of March 21, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Concerns and Practical Challenges of the 240-Day Limit
Comments: Several commenters strongly opposed the proposed 240-day
admission period for I visa holders. A commenter thought the 240 days
was arbitrary compared to the new length of
[[Page 45063]]
stay for students, which was based on the duration of a course of
study. Other commenters stated that the proposed timeframe is
inadequate for foreign journalists to effectively perform their duties.
Commenters emphasized that foreign correspondents typically receive
assignments in the United States lasting 3-to-5 years, and that the 3-
to-4-year time frame allows I nonimmigrants to develop expertise, build
source relationships, and gain cultural understanding necessary for
quality reporting. Commenters reported a 240-day timeframe, therefore,
is inadequate for covering long-term journalistic projects and events,
including presidential election cycles, congressional sessions,
extended sports seasons, investigative reporting, and ongoing coverage
of evolving current events. Commenters noted that the proposed time
period would create uncertainty, disrupt international travel, increase
the risk of coverage interruption, and impair journalists' ability to
develop deep knowledge and trusted networks. Commenters stated the
proposed period of admission is not enough time for the applicant to
complete the activities the visa is intended to support.
Other commenters noted that fixed admission periods introduce
uncertainty that will discourage participation in the United States.
Commenters also stated there is a lack of evidence demonstrating a
security risk, overstays, or misuse of the I visa under the D/S
framework and, instead, there is strong oversight of I visa holders,
with visas being linked to a named journalist and their employer. It
was stated this oversight is stronger than when the I visa was first
introduced.
Commenters stated that the proposed rule would create substantial
administrative burdens for foreign journalists and their employers. The
commenters described concerns about the frequency of extension
requests, repetitive documentation requirements, and risks associated
with serial filings. One commenter estimated that more frequent I visa
renewals would increase operational and travel costs by approximately
700 percent over a 5-year period, creating what they characterized as
an unreasonable financial burden.\231\ Additionally, another commenter
noted that it is currently taking USCIS Service Center Operations more
than 6.5 months to adjudicate 80 percent of EOS requests.\232\ A
commenter stated if an employer is not ready to immediately file an
EOS, the lengthy processing times at USCIS could still result in a gap
in work authorization, even with the automatic extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ The commenter did not provide a source.
\232\ The commenter referenced USCIS, Case Processing Times,
https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, commenters highlighted numerous practical difficulties
that the 240-day period would create for foreign journalists and their
families. The commenters described that the 240-day period was too
short to secure standard 12-month housing leases, arrange health
insurance, develop professional resources, and obtain press credentials
at institutions like the U.S. Capitol, and that it would create
complications for obtaining and maintaining driver's licenses tied to
visa status, disruptions to children's education, obstacles for
accompanying spouses seeking employment, and overall instability to
family members and dependents. One commenter noted that the proposed
changes, if finalized, would limit the ability of international news
organizations to recruit highly qualified journalists for assignment to
the United States as many experienced journalists may be unable or
unwilling to accept such a major change for a short period of time with
no guarantee of extension. One commenter noted that, according to the
Pew Research Center (2024), over 63 percent of Americans say foreign
news coverage is important for democracy.\233\ Another commenter
expressed concern that the rule would weaken the ability of foreign
correspondence to work in the United States, causing harm to the
operations of international broadcasters and limiting international
audience's from accessing independent reporting about the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ The commenter did not elaborate on their citation to the
Pew Research Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also expressed concern that requiring frequent visa
renewals would increase reliance on foreign intelligence, which they
described as potentially politically motivated or inaccurate, leading
to wrongful visa denials. They said the proposal to require thousands
of experienced international journalists to submit and receive approval
for visas is unrealistic, noting that the existing visa process already
suffers from faulty foreign intelligence and incorrect automated flags
that significantly delay applications.
A commenter proposed a two-year period of admission for I
nonimmigrants, either universally or by reciprocity, noting the
existence of a reciprocity-based two-year admission framework for
treaty investors (E-2).
Response: DHS welcomes foreign journalists and is confident that
the changes made by this rule balance journalistic needs with DHS's
need for regularly determined points for verifying that a journalist
maintains his or her status. As noted in the proposed rule, admitting I
nonimmigrants for D/S affords them different treatment from most other
nonimmigrants who are admitted for a specified period of time. As
explained in the NPRM, DHS is adopting an established timeframe to
which I nonimmigrants are already accustomed if they switch employers
while on assignment in the United States.\234\ While the commenters
assert that the 240-day time frame is challenging and insufficient for
many foreign correspondents to complete their assignments, DHS notes
that internal exit data show that the vast majority of I nonimmigrants
stay for less than 240 days.\235\ Of those few I nonimmigrants who seek
to complete longer assignments, they may apply for extensions as
needed, to remain beyond 240 days (90 days for those presenting
passports from the PRC, except for Hong Kong SAR or Macau SAR passport
holders). For those who are assigned to a foreign news bureau's U.S.
office for extended periods, other visas, such as the L-1 visa for
managers and specialists, may be appropriate so long as the eligibility
requirements for that category are met for that particular alien.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ See 90 FR at 42086 (Aug. 28, 2025).
\235\ DHS data shows that 94.6 percent of I's with confirmed
exit data stay less than 240 days. Based on DHS's analysis of ADIS
data identifying length of stay of I-visa holders between 2015 and
2024, valid as of March 21, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once an I nonimmigrant has timely filed an EOS, he or she may
continue to work for the same employer for up to 240 days under 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20) while the EOS is pending and is not required to leave
the United States while the EOS is pending. As such, nonimmigrants will
have their initial admission period, which is up to 90 or 240 days, and
another 90 or 240 days if they timely file an EOS with USCIS and
maintain lawful status (with the 90 days being applied to those
presenting passports from the PRC, except for Hong Kong SAR or Macau
SAR passport holders). See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5)(iii) and 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20). DHS also notes, however, that should the journalist
choose to travel outside the United States, he or she may be admitted
by CBP, if admissible, for a period of time necessary to complete the
planned activities or assignments consistent with the I classification,
up to a 240-day period (or 90-day period for those presenting passports
from the PRC, other than a Hong Kong SAR
[[Page 45064]]
passport or Macau SAR passport) in that manner. DHS does not expect
that the maximum 90- or 240-day admission period will deter or
discourage foreign correspondents from coming to work in the United
States. If an EOS application remains pending at the end of this 90- or
240-day period, the I nonimmigrant alien, whose status has expired, may
remain in the United States, but not work, so long as the EOS
application is pending, he or she has timely filed a subsequent EOS
request to remain beyond the period requested in the preceding request,
and he or she does not otherwise violate the terms of his or her
authorized period of stay. See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5)(i)(C) and new 8
CFR 214.2(i)(5)(iii)(B). The I nonimmigrant alien, however, must cease
working until their initial EOS application is approved. See new 8 CFR
214.2(i)(5)(i)(C). USCIS will deny the EOS application if the alien did
not cease working after the 240-day period and before the EOS request
was approved. See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5)(i)(C).
DHS recognizes this rule could increase the need for I
nonimmigrants to file EOS requests and may increase USCIS processing
times. But, as outlined in other sections herein, such as Secs. III.C.4
and IV.G.1.c.(1), DHS believes the benefits of increased DHS contact
with these nonimmigrants outweigh these burdens and processing time
considerations. USCIS is fee funded and can make adjustments as
appropriate. DHS also notes allowing an I nonimmigrant to continue
working while both his or her initial and second EOS applications are
still pending may be problematic, especially if the initial I extension
request is denied, because that would mean that someone who was
ineligible as an I nonimmigrant was able to continue working beyond the
period when his or her initial EOS request is pending because of the
adjudication timeframes and the nonimmigrant's ability to continue
filing EOS requests.
4. International Impacts and Reciprocity
Comments: Commenters stated that the shortening of the visa term
and the conditioning of extensions on DHS review of ``the content that
the foreign information media representative is covering in the United
States'' raises concerns about lack of justification and the creation
of instability within the international journalistic community.
Commenters also stated that the proposed rule could undermine whether
accurate information about the United States is both delivered to
international audiences through foreign journalists and communicated in
audiences' own language. Commenters stated that the proposed rule could
create an information vacuum that could be filled with narratives from
rival nations and adversaries. A commenter stated that the proposed
rule could skew reporting by limiting stories reported by foreign
journalists to large cities, such as New York City or Los Angeles, and
thus ignore reporting on the realities of rural and small towns in
America.
Another commenter stated that journalists play important roles
during major events such as elections, the Olympic games, or national
emergencies. One commenter specifically noted that the proposed
regulation could undermine transparency during the U.S. congressional
elections in 2026 and presidential election in 2028. According to the
commenter, if foreign correspondents cannot reliably maintain their
assignments, election transparency suffers. The commenter said this
risk is especially acute when independent verification from
international outlets is needed to counter misinformation.
Commenters mentioned that international investors, policymakers,
and business leaders rely on accurate foreign press coverage of U.S.
markets and government policy. Commenters stated that foreign media
coverage builds confidence and supports investment flows to the United
States, contributes to the country's global identity, and extends the
reach of American companies and interests. They explained that by
spending years, not months, on the ground, journalists gain the deep
knowledge, trusted networks, and contextual immersion needed to explain
America to global audiences. Another commenter explained that foreign
journalists can give Americans insights into other countries.
Commenters remarked that the United States has long benefited from
hosting robust foreign media coverage, which enhances transparency,
reinforces American values, and encourages foreign investment and
tourism.
Commenters also note that foreign correspondents contribute to
mutual understanding and exchange and that foreign correspondents and
their families contribute economically to the United States by paying
rent, purchasing goods, traveling domestically, and enrolling children
in extracurricular activities. Commenters also remarked that foreign
bureaus create jobs for U.S. citizens and permanent residents,
including editors, producers, researchers, translators, and technical
staff.
A commenter noted that many overseas desks in the United States are
responsible for covering the whole hemisphere including Canada, Latin
America, and the Caribbean. Another commenter noted that the proposed
rule would prevent journalists from staying in the United States for a
substantial period of time, hampering their ability to develop or
deploy journalists with specific expertise to the U.S. Commenters
stated that the United States has always stood for openness, freedom of
expression, and a strong, independent press. They expressed concern
that restricting international media access would risk undermining that
legacy because it emulates countries where press freedom is near
extinct. A commenter wrote that reducing press freedom could harm the
U.S. economy because of the correlation between press freedom and
systemic security of a country's banks. Another wrote that it could
harm investigative journalism and cultural coverage of the United
States. Commenters expressed concern that curtailing foreign media
would risk replacing coverage with narratives from rival nations and
offshore sources. Another commenter wrote that authoritarian systems
use visas to silence criticism and dissent.
A large U.S. media outlet and several other commenters raised
concerns that the proposed rule is likely to prompt foreign governments
to reciprocate with their own visa restrictions. The commenters stated
that the United States admits foreign journalists on ``a basis of
reciprocity'' (see 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(I)), and that should other
nations respond by shortening visa periods, American journalists would
find themselves under closer scrutiny by foreign agencies as they face
repeated visa renewals. According to these commenters, they also become
more susceptible to arbitrary visa denials or denials driven by a
foreign government's unhappiness with critical coverage, and other
nations cannot be expected to disregard what the United States is doing
and quietly accept the inconveniences being visited upon their own
journalists working here. Commenters cited specific examples \236\
where restrictive U.S. visa policies had previously triggered
retaliatory measures by authoritarian governments, including visa
denials and expulsions of
[[Page 45065]]
U.S. journalists in countries like China and Russia. They warned that
imposing burdensome visa procedures on foreign journalists would likely
provoke similar responses, potentially endangering the safety and work
of American media professionals overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ See, e.g., Grevy Gotfredensen, S., Entry Denied, Colum. J.
Rev. (Apr. 10, 2025), https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/entry-denied-us-border-customs-device-unlock-search-journalists-detain.php
(noting 55 instances of journalists stopped at the border since
2017, including instances where reporters were questioned by border
authorities over their work).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters also referenced the language in 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(I) and remarked that DHS previously resolved to shorten the
stays available to Chinese journalists because of China's use of short
visa terms to suppress independent journalism in the PRC. Commenters
urged DHS to focus on the operational realities and mutual benefits of
a robust foreign media presence, rather than relying on visa
reciprocity as the primary justification for admission periods. These
commenters also stated that if a reciprocity-based framework is
considered, it should be applied in a manner that does not disadvantage
media organizations. A commenter stated that the proposed rule
undermines the principle of journalistic reciprocity, whereby countries
rely on foreign reports to cover global affairs. One commenter
addressed the 90-day admission limit for Chinese nationals, arguing it
raises equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment's Due
Process clause, noting that courts have previously reversed
nationality-based policies due to the policies lacking sufficient
justification.
Commenters expressed that changes to the I nonimmigrant provisions
would have a potential chilling effect on U.S. and foreign media
correspondents or organizations, or the flow or quality of information
disseminated.
Response: DHS does not expect that the rule will deter or
discourage foreign correspondents from coming to work in the United
States and does not anticipate that foreign media organizations or
governments will react to the rule with reciprocal, retaliatory actions
against U.S. news correspondents or interests. Furthermore, DHS does
not have data, and cannot draw on any relevant historical precedence,
to quantify or monetize the rule's potential chilling effect on U.S.
and foreign media correspondents or organizations or the flow or
quality of information disseminated. Accordingly, DHS has not modified
the discussion of impacts on I nonimmigrants in this final rule. As
mentioned throughout the rule, I nonimmigrants will be able to apply
for EOS should their work last longer than the initial admission
period. In addition, this rule does not raise an equal protection issue
for I nonimmigrants as requiring a fixed period of time of stay in the
United States is not only applicable to all I nonimmigrants, but also
to the vast majority of other nonimmigrants who are in the United
States. The rule also does not target Chinese nationals as DHS is not
changing the 90-day admission limitation for certain Chinese nationals
but merely removing the Secretary's flexibility to change this
limitation through Federal Register notice. See Sec. IV.P.2.e of this
rule below for further discussion.
5. Challenges for Freelance and Self-Employed Journalists
Comments: A commenter highlighted challenges for freelance and
self-employed journalists, including bloggers, remarking that the
proposed rule lacked clarity on how such individuals could establish
the home office requirement while simultaneously demonstrating
affiliation with a foreign media organization operating abroad. A
commenter stated that additional fees and compliance costs for
extensions of status ($555 per application including biometrics) will
push smaller outlets and freelance reporters out of the market. This
disadvantages independent media and leaves coverage dominated by the
largest corporate outlets--shrinking the diversity of viewpoints
available.
Commenters stated that requiring a journalist to be a
representative of a foreign media organization will disproportionately
harm independent journalists from repressive countries like Iran,
Venezuela, and Russia, who are unlikely to have a formal relationship
with a media organization in their home country and more likely to face
repression if expelled from the United States.
Response: DHS does not believe that the rule will have an impact on
freelance and self-employed journalists, including bloggers because I
visa applicants have always had to demonstrate that the foreign media
organization that the alien represents has a home office in a foreign
country and that the home office will continue to operate in the
foreign country while the alien is in the United States. This is not a
new concept based on this rule. Even prior to this rule, for purpose of
the I visa application, the DoS Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) has
provided that self-employed information media representatives must have
a home office in another country and that freelance information media
workers must have a contract with an organization that has a home
office abroad.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ See 9 FAM 402.11-11, Self-employed and Freelance Media
Representatives, https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040211.html
(last updated Sept. 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAM clarifies that if the home office abroad will cease to
function or greatly limit its operations after the applicant is in the
United States, the applicant would not qualify for the I visa, as the
applicant would not be able to demonstrate the required ties to an
organization that has a home office abroad.\238\ While there may be
procedural administrative differences between agencies, this DHS rule
does not deviate from how DoS interprets and applies the I visa
classification requirements for self-employed and freelance media
representatives, including bloggers, as outlined in the FAM.\239\ As
explained in the preamble, this rule has adopted USCIS and DoS'
historical interpretation of a foreign media organization. The rule
clarifies the long-standing practice that the alien be a representative
of a media organization with a home office in a foreign country by
codifying what is considered a foreign media organization when seeking
qualification as an I nonimmigrant.\240\ For additional information on
DHS response to general deterrence, burden, and cost issues please see
the complete Final Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ See 9 FAM 402.11-6, Home Office Abroad Required, https://
fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM040211.html (last updated Sept. 22,
2021).
\239\ See 9 FAM 402.11-10, New Media--Blogging and Other
Electronic Media Platforms (last updated Sept. 22, 2021) and 9 FAM
402.11-11, supra note 237.
\240\ See generally USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 2, Part K, Chap.
2, Eligibility, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-k-chapter-2 (last visited Feb. 4, 2026); see also 22 CFR 41.52; 9 FAM
402.11-3(a)(1), https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040211.html
(last updated Sept. 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Requests for Alternative I Nonimmigrant Admission and Extension
Periods
Comments: To combat concerns and challenges noted in this rule for
I nonimmigrants, commenters suggested several alternative admission and
extension periods for DHS to consider. Commenters requested that DHS
maintain the current D/S framework for I visa holders or, at minimum,
provide a fixed admission period of multiple years. One commenter
suggested, as an alternative, that I nonimmigrants be vetted more
thoroughly before arriving in the United States, with their visa being
revoked if later found to be posing a legitimate threat to national
security. A commenter recommended that short-term event-based
journalists could be distinguished from bureau correspondents, thereby
allowing
[[Page 45066]]
different admission periods. Two other commenters stated there should
be 2-year admission periods for bureau correspondents. Multiple
commenters requested that DHS adopt a 2-year initial admission period
for I visa nonimmigrants and their dependents. These commenters also
requested that opportunities for extensions of stay be available in 2-
year increments, and that DHS provide clarification on the granting of
multiple extensions without an overall maximum length, subject to
continued eligibility and compliance with I-classification
requirements.
Another set of commenters specifically requested a 4-year fixed
admission period with the possibility to extend for up to 1 year, for I
nonimmigrants and their dependents. Furthermore, one commenter
suggested that DHS offer two distinct admission durations for I visas:
240 days for short-term assignments, with extensions available; and 4
years for correspondents and long-term missions, with extensions
available. Other commenters requested that DHS, in coordination with
the DoS, authorize I nonimmigrant admission with a validity period of
up to 5 years where permitted by reciprocity schedules, consistent with
INA 101(a)(15)(I) and existing reciprocity practices for other
nonimmigrant categories. A commenter stated that this would reduce
consular backlogs while maintaining regular DHS checks and oversight.
A commenter recommended that I-visa admissions should be limited to
6-to-12-month periods, with no opportunities for automatic renewal. The
commenter also stated that any extensions should require justification
and full vetting of the individual. Another commenter recommended DHS
implement expedited journalist-specific extensions with decisions
issued within 30 days. The same commenter also suggested capping fees
for media representatives to ensure access regardless of the media
outlet size. Additionally, the commenter sought measures to protect
journalists from retaliatory denials with transparent criteria for the
extension decisions.
Response: DHS acknowledges commenters' concerns about the rule's
potential impact on I nonimmigrants but does not expect that the rule
will adversely impact I visa holders or applicants, nor domestic and
foreign media organizations, in the manner suggested by commenters.
This rule is being issued, among other reasons, to align the treatment
of affected I nonimmigrants with the vast majority of nonimmigrant
classifications, who are admitted for a fixed time period. DHS declines
to adopt the commenter limitation noted above, as well as the expansion
suggestions to increase the length of I admission or a cap on fees.
Adopting the limitation and expansion suggestions would be rigid, not
based on available data, and could potentially allow more than the
period of time necessary to complete the planned activities or
assignments consistent with the I classification, not to exceed 240
days, except for those aliens as described in paragraph (i)(3)(ii)
whose admission may not exceed 90 days.\241\ As explained elsewhere in
this rule, DHS will not adopt the alternative admission or extension
durations for I nonimmigrants as the vast majority of I visa holders
stay for less than 240 days.\242\ Those who need to stay for several
years may consider other visa categories that may better align with
their job requirements if they meet that category's eligibility
requirements and their jobs also include management of the foreign
media organization's U.S. bureau or if they are specializing on one
type of news story such as the U.S. election cycle. DHS is reviewing
the possibility for adding EOS to premium processing, but for now,
nonimmigrants can request expedited review as discussed elsewhere in
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(3)(i) and (ii).
\242\ DHS's analysis of ADIS data identifying length of stay of
I-visa holders between 2015 and 2024, valid as of March 21, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Suggestions From Foreign Media Organizations and International
Stakeholders
Comments: A commenter provided several suggestions for DHS
pertaining to the rule and I nonimmigrants, including (1) giving full
consideration to public comments by Japanese foreign media
organizations and the Japan National Tourism Organization (JNTO), (2)
considering recommendations to ensure a stable and predictable
residence in the United States for Japanese media representatives, (3)
granting dependent family members I visa classification on the same
terms and conditions as the principal applicant, and (4) establishing
channels of communication with DoS to follow up on these
considerations.
Response: As an initial matter, DHS has carefully reviewed and
considered all public comments received for this rule, whether from
individuals or entities, including the recommendations from the Embassy
of Japan and other organizations listed within the comment. DHS has
communicated with DoS on this rulemaking and will continue to
communicate with them, as needed or deemed appropriate, to ensure
effective implementation of the rule. While DHS appreciates different
approaches and recommendations for the I nonimmigrant classification,
DHS believes that the 240-day period is not only sufficient to cover
most assignments \243\ but is also an appropriate interval for the U.S.
government to ensure that the alien remains eligible as an I
nonimmigrant for the reasons explained above and throughout this
preamble. Given the countless number of foreign media organizations
from all over the world, DHS is unable to accommodate the requests of
specific entities seeking longer admission periods for specific
nationals from certain foreign media organizations. DHS also notes that
dependents of the principal I nonimmigrant classification will, if
admissible, receive the same admission period as the principal; this
has always been the case. Extensions of stay for I dependents will not
exceed the authorized admission period of the principal I
representative of foreign information media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ DHS data, supra note 174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
O. CBP Operational and Training Burdens
1. Concerns About Increased Responsibilities and System Complexity
Comments: Commenters raised concerns about the increased
responsibilities placed on CBP, including the need for system upgrades
and officer training, and the potential for operational inefficiencies
under the proposed rule. Many commenters stated that the rule could
cause confusion for CBP officers as it provided no clear explanation
about how CBP and/or the alien would decide applicable scenarios. Other
commenters stated the rule does not sufficiently address training needs
for CBP officers, which they said could potentially overwhelm ports and
divert attention from genuine security threats.
A commenter remarked that the proposed rule would materially alter
CBP's role by requiring officers to assign fixed expiration dates based
on a review of the student's program information, institutional
accreditation, OPT or STEM OPT end dates, and, in some cases, country-
specific factors. A commenter noted technical issues, inaccuracies, and
delays with Form I-94 systems, stating that more decision-making and
varying admissions end dates for F and J nonimmigrants would increase
the impact of technical issues and delays if schools, program sponsors,
[[Page 45067]]
and nonimmigrants themselves are unclear about their admissions end
date. Commenters stated that adding this complexity to CBP decisions
would lengthen inspection times, introduce inconsistencies and errors,
and likely increase the number of nonimmigrants who must visit CBP
Deferred Inspection offices. One commenter with 20 years of experience
as an ARO and DSO stated that the proposed rule could exacerbate
inconsistencies as more individualized decision-making is required for
each nonimmigrant. A different commenter stated that CBP is not trained
or prepared to assume these adjudicatory responsibilities and that
erroneous decisions could have severe consequences for foreign
students' ability to study or pursue a career in the United States.
Similarly, another commenter said that DHS has not adequately
assessed the negative impacts of the proposed rule on CBP. They
recommended that DHS consider less burdensome alternatives and
transparently address the costs CBP would incur to implement and uphold
the proposed regulatory changes. Specifically, a commenter noted that
the proposal does not address the impact on EOS adjudication procedures
at ports of entry.
Response: DHS appreciates commenters' concerns about training of
CBP officers. DHS is committed to conducting all necessary trainings
across its components in order to implement this rule. DHS is also
updating computer processing systems to address the elimination of D/S.
CBP has prepared training to give officers the information necessary to
implement the changes for the fixed period of admission for F and J
nonimmigrants. This will complement the existing training on the
processing of these individuals.
Presently, CBP provides training for all Officers and Agents on
non-immigrant classes of admission and on various visa categories at
their respective basic training academy. CBP Officers who are involved
with inspecting applicants for admission at a POE receive additional
and continual training on the various classes of admission based on the
different visa categories and to correctly enter the class of admission
into the primary processing system.
The rule states that F and J nonimmigrants will be admitted until
the completion date provided by the DSO/ARO in SEVIS, not to exceed
four years, plus a departure period of 30 days. The rule further states
that I nonimmigrants may be admitted for up to 240 days (except for an
I nonimmigrant submitting a passport from the PRC, except Hong Kong SAR
and Macau SAR, who can be admitted for up to 90 days) or until the
activities or assignments consistent with the I classification are
completed, whichever are shorter. Other nonimmigrant classes of
admission have variable expiration dates, such as H-1B and L-1, where
there is a petition expiration date which on subsequent admission is
less than the maximum period of admission. CBP officers are well versed
in assigning fixed periods of admissions and doing so in the F, J, and
I categories should pose no problems.
2. Clarification on Extension Process and CBP Discretion
Comments: A commenter stated that the explanation of the extension
process as it pertains to international travel is vague, noting a lack
of clarity regarding whether students and exchange visitors could
extend their status by traveling internationally and then re-entering
the United States. A commenter requested additional guidance on whether
F and J nonimmigrants would be permitted to extend their status
expiration date through international travel after the transition
period. While another commenter stated the rule does not clarify if
travel and re-entry would be an alternative to filing an EOS, so this
ambiguity creates uncertainty for students, institutions, and
adjudicating officers.
Commenters also expressed concern about granting discretion to CBP
to determine admission periods while an EOS is pending, reasoning that
this could create room for inter-agency miscommunication that might
negatively impact nonimmigrants' status upon reentry. Commenters stated
that such inter-agency gaps could result in premature admission
expirations or erroneous abandonment or cancellation of EOS
applications, potentially creating additional financial burdens and
status concerns for nonimmigrants.
Response: POE extensions with CBP and EOS applications with USCIS
are both available to aliens, and it will be the choice of each alien
to decide if it is more convenient to travel abroad or to apply for EOS
through USCIS. DHS believes both the NPRM and the final rule have
explained these two option thoroughly, but to reiterate, both are
distinct methods of obtaining a new AUD and new I-94. It is ultimately
the alien's choice as to which method to choose.
If an EOS application is filed with USCIS, the F, J, or I
nonimmigrant must timely file and demonstrate their eligibility for the
EOS. USCIS will determine if it will extend the student's or visitor's
stay based on the evidence available at the time of adjudication of a
timely filed EOS application. The eligibility requirements are designed
to help ensure that those applying for EOS are bona fide students,
exchange visitors, or media representatives as required by statute,
which include maintaining the proper amount of coursework, not working
for other employers while not authorized to work by either DoS or
USCIS, and not committing any crimes while in the United States. A
denial of EOS will require the alien to leave the country immediately.
If approved, USCIS will issue the student a paper Form I-94. That paper
I-94 becomes the student's new legal document showing their extension.
If an F, J, or I nonimmigrant chooses to travel abroad, then CBP
will make this decision after the nonimmigrant applies for admission
with CBP at a POE, and the I-94 will be available electronically.
Elsewhere in this rule DHS discusses the implications of traveling
abroad while an EOS is pending with USCIS. Please see the discussion in
the EOS section in IV.G.5 above. The rule is intended to provide
flexibility while ensuring oversight and compliance with immigration
laws.
Regardless of whether the nonimmigrant seeks an extension via an
EOS with USCIS or at a POE with CBP, the nonimmigrant is entitled to an
adjudication or determination of their request and both USCIS and CBP
will have the same discretion and will look at the same factors for
determining eligibility. They will also both use the program end date
that is listed on the paperwork presented to the immigration officer to
determine the AUD. And, because CBP and- USCIS systems, along with DoS
and SEVIS, are coordinated, there should be no miscommunication between
government agencies.
3. Automatic Extension of Visa Validity at POE for Contiguous Travel:
Concerns About Changing ``Shall'' to ``May'' and Automatic Revalidation
Comments: Multiple commenters stated opposition to changing the
language from ``shall'' to ``may'' in the visa revalidation provisions,
remarking that this change would introduce uncertainty, undermine
reliance interests of students and schools, and undermine a long-
standing benefit for nonimmigrants returning from brief contiguous
travel. Commenters expressed concerns about various provisions related
to automatic extension of visa validity at POEs for contiguous travel.
A commenter
[[Page 45068]]
specifically expressed opposition to the requirements proposed in the
NPRM for F and J nonimmigrants seeking admission, including after
travel abroad, and to the NPRM's proposal to update the cross-reference
and clarify the standards for admission in the automatic extension visa
validity provisions that cover F and J nonimmigrants applying at a POE
after an absence not exceeding 30 days solely in a contiguous territory
or adjacent islands.
Commenters stated that clarification regarding automatic
revalidation of visas would be helpful for advising students and
scholars who might need to travel when the final rule is published.
Another commenter noted that the automatic revalidation of visas
interplay should be clarified so as to not harm pending EOS
applications.
Commenters stated that DHS should maintain the predictability of
the ``30-day rule'' for short-term travel to contiguous territories and
adjacent islands and that DHS did not provide adequate justification
for removing this benefit. Commenters stated that F and J nonimmigrants
have historically been able to travel to neighboring countries for
periods under 30 days without renewing their visa stamps, whether for
personal reasons during approved breaks or for academic or professional
reasons. A commenter stated that CBP should be re-evaluating a new
admission window at each entry, thereby allowing a valid alternative
that allows maintenance of status by existing DoS and CBP verification
procedures, rather than costly and lengthy USCIS petitions. Another
commenter stated that a better approach is to maintain the ``shall''
standard, while clarifying that discretion applies only when a status
violation or inadmissibility ground is found.
Response: DHS appreciates the concerns but maintains that the
change from ``shall'' to ``may'' is appropriate. This change in the
admission language relating to extension of visa validity removes
ambiguity, clarifying that CBP always maintains discretion to determine
whether to admit an alien and for the period of admission. See new 8
CFR 214.1(b). CBP officers must always assess admissibility and
compliance with status on a case-by-case basis and cannot be required
to admit or readmit an individual who is inadmissible or otherwise
ineligible for the requested classification.
DHS recognizes commenters' concerns that moving from ``shall'' to
``may'' could be perceived as reducing predictability or undermining
reliance interests. However, even under prior language, admission and
readmission have always been subject to inspection and admissibility
determinations under the INA. CBP has always retained the discretion to
deny admission where a ground of inadmissibility or other ineligibility
applies. The revised language more accurately reflects this
longstanding legal framework and does not, by itself, change the
substantive eligibility criteria for automatic revalidation. Likewise,
this rule does not require F or J nonimmigrants to file an EOS solely
because they undertook a brief trip that would otherwise qualify for
automatic revalidation under DoS regulations, nor does it alter the
basic structure of relying on DoS and CBP verification procedures at
the POE.
DHS appreciates the suggestions to maintain a mandatory ``shall''
standard and to limit CBP discretion only to cases involving status
violations or grounds of inadmissibility. DHS declines to adopt these
recommendations because they are inconsistent with the statutory
requirement that each applicant for admission be subject to inspection
and found admissible, and because DHS must preserve the ability of CBP
officers to address fraud, abuse, or national security concerns at the
time of entry or reentry. DHS also declines to create a separate, DHS-
only revalidation regime that would supplant DoS existing framework.
DHS recognizes that F and J nonimmigrants, as well as schools and
program sponsors, have long relied on DoS's automatic revalidation
framework for short-term travel to contiguous territories and adjacent
islands, including trips of 30 days or less, and that predictability in
this area is important for planning personal, academic, and
professional travel. This rule does not change the underlying DoS
regulation governing automatic revalidation, and DHS is not eliminating
the ability of F, J, and M nonimmigrants to seek readmission after
brief contiguous territory travel consistent with 22 CFR 41.112(d), nor
is DHS creating new numerical or calendar day limits beyond those
already reflected in existing DoS and CBP practice. Instead of having
to get a new visa, CBP may admit the nonimmigrant, whose visa validity
is automatically extended by operation of DoS regulations. See 22 CFR
41.112(d). DHS does not believe it is necessary to require a
nonimmigrant to obtain a new visa under these circumstances.
Several commenters asked how automatic revalidation would interact
with pending EOS applications and expressed concern that short-term
travel could inadvertently harm a pending EOS. As discussed elsewhere
in this preamble, under new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(8), if an F or J
nonimmigrant timely files an EOS request and departs the United States
while that EOS is pending, USCIS will not consider the EOS request
abandoned if, upon return, the previously authorized period of
admission has not expired and the individual seeks admission for the
balance of the previously authorized period. If the individual instead
departs and seeks admission with an updated Form I-20 or DS-2019
reflecting a program end date beyond the previously authorized period
of admission, the EOS request may be deemed abandoned. Importantly,
USCIS will not consider corresponding employment authorization
applications abandoned solely due to such travel. These provisions
apply regardless of whether the individual seeks readmission with the
benefit of DoS's automatic revalidation rules or with a new visa and
are intended to mitigate the risk that brief necessary travel,
including to contiguous territories, will unfairly disrupt an
appropriately filed EOS.
Finally, DHS agrees that clear guidance regarding the interplay of
automatic revalidation, fixed admission periods, and pending EOS
applications is important for students, exchange visitors, and schools.
DHS will continue to evaluate the need for additional public guidance
or updates to existing resources to help DSO's and RO's advise F and J
nonimmigrants who may need to travel while maintaining status or while
an EOS is pending.
P. Legal Authority, Background, and Purpose
1. Legal Authority
a. Proposed Rule Exceeds Statutory Authority and Congressional Intent
Comments: Many commenters expressed concerns about DHS's statutory
and legal authority to implement the proposed rule, stating that the
proposed rule does not align with congressional intent and the intent
of the INA, DHS does not have a clear Congressional mandate or
authority to implement the rule changes, DHS has exceeded its delegated
authority, the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious, and legally
unsound. One commenter expanded on that stating that the policy is a
violation of personal freedoms. Several commenters stated that DHS is
not authorized to arbitrarily redefine terms or determine an arbitrary
length of admission, and this proposed rule is an overreach. A
commenter stated that the proposed rule cited statutory authority that
confers the
[[Page 45069]]
power to administer and enforce upon the U.S. Attorney General rather
than DHS, as such, neither DHS nor ICE have authority to change the
program, citing 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1) (2024), 8 U.S.C. 1372(a)(1) (2024),
and 8 U.S.C. 1372(a)(1) (2024). Another commenter remarked that the
discretion given to immigration officers by the proposed rule violates
the checks and balances established by Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
(1803). A commenter, while expressing opposition to the proposed
restrictions on changes in educational objectives, remarked that
blanket bans are arbitrary and have been struck down in court, such as
in Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011). A commenter stated that the
proposed rule is vulnerable to judicial reversal, citing Batalla Vidal
v. Wolf, 501 F.Supp.3d 117 (2020), as an example of a court striking
down similar immigration regulations. Similarly, a commenter stated
that courts have repeatedly struck down agency rules that attempt to
override statutory design without Congressional authorization, citing
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000), and
argued that this rule risks being struck down as well.
Response: DHS addresses the comments regarding the Secretary's
legal authority in the legal authority discussion of the proposed
rule.\244\ The legal basis for this final rule is grounded in the
Secretary of Homeland Security's broad authority to administer and
enforce the nation's immigration laws. Section 102 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (HSA) (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135), 6 U.S.C.
112, and section 103(a)(1) and (3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1),
(3), charge the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of
the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States. Notably,
HSA transferred certain authorities and responsibilities from the
Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security, as the Act
established DHS and reassigned functions related to immigration and
other areas to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Section 214(a) of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a), gives the Secretary the authority to
prescribe, by regulation, the time and conditions of admission of any
alien as a nonimmigrant, including F, J, and I nonimmigrant aliens. See
also 6 U.S.C. 271(a)(3), (b) (describing certain USCIS functions and
authorities, including USCIS' authority to establish national
immigration services policies and priorities and adjudicate benefits
applications) and 6 U.S.C. 252(a)(4) (describing ICE's authority to
collect information relating to foreign students and exchange program
participants and to use such information to carry out its enforcement
functions). Further, Section 402(4) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 202(4),
expressly authorizes the Secretary, consistent with 6 U.S.C. 236 (the
DoS's statutory authority concerning visa issuance and refusal), to
establish and administer rules governing the granting of visas or other
forms of permission to enter the United States to individuals who are
not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\244\ See 90 FR at 42074 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS rejects the characterization of this rule as government
overreach and a violation of personal freedoms. DHS has authority to
change the time and conditions related to nonimmigrants, provided that
it adequately explains the basis for these changes and follows the
appropriate processes as it has done in the proposed rule. See FCC v.
Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009). DHS is within its
powers to promulgate this rule and the legal authorities for this
change. DHS disagrees with the commenters that assert that the rule
does not align with the intent of the INA and that the administrative
burdens are counter to the intent of the INA to provide an academic
exchange. DHS disagrees with the commenter that the rule disrupts the
checks and balances of Marbury v. Madison because nothing in the rule
prevents a noncitizen from seeking judicial review of an immigration
officer's final action. Furthermore, Judulang v. Holder and Batalla
Vidal v. Wolf are distinguishable and inapplicable here. As further
discussed below, DHS also disagrees that this rule is arbitrary and
capricious or legally unsound.
b. Rationale for D/S Framework and Congressional Intent
Comments: Several commenters discussed the rationale behind the
adoption of the D/S framework and that it was introduced to save
resources, reduce administrative burdens, allow for schools to monitor
students effectively, accommodate the variable timelines of academic
and research programs, and increase efficiency whereas DHS has failed
to demonstrate why the proposed rule is necessary, reasonable, or
constituent with statutory objectives. Several commenters noted that
SEVIS was specifically established through the IIRIRA and expanded
under the USA PATRIOT Act following the September 11, 2001, attacks to
provide statutory tools for real-time information, continuous
reporting, and continuous monitoring about foreign students and
scholars, which is an existing tool for oversight and monitoring.
Another commenter reported SEVIS already allows DHS to prevent and
identify fraud and abuse of F and J nonimmigrants through its
collection and delivery of information to DHS. The commenter further
stated DHS could request information and documents not submitted in
SEVIS from institutions, who are required to retain information during
the student's enrollment and for three years after. Several commenters
noted that the creation of SEVP and SEVIS by Congress did not indicate
any intention to replace the D/S program and that SEVIS already allows
the ongoing tracking of nonimmigrant students. A commenter said the
proposed rule represents ``a gross and purposeful misrepresentation of
the intent behind student visas.
Another commenter stated that biometric collection and interview
requirements exceed regulatory authority without specific Congressional
authorization, particularly given significant liberty interests and
discriminatory potential. The commenter stated the rule transforms
cooperative educational relationships into enforcement mechanisms,
abandoning successful academic immigration governance.
Response: DHS disagrees with commenters who assert that Congress,
in creating SEVP and SEVIS, did not specifically mention a disapproval
of the D/S framework and therefore, it should not be eliminated. As
noted in the proposed rule, in response to the events of September 11,
2001, the Patriot Act mandated a full implementation and expansion of
foreign student monitoring.\245\ Additionally, a Homeland Security
Presidential Directive titled, Combating Terrorism Through Immigration
Policies, directed that a program be developed to track the status of
foreign students and also mandated that the government develop
guidelines that may include limited duration of student status.\246\
Further, the 9/11 Commission, created through an act of Congress, also
expressed concern in the need to track foreign students and implement
more controls on student visas.\247\ Based on these mandates and
statutory authorities, including 8 U.S.C. 1372, SEVP formed SEVIS to
address national security needs. The regulatory changes in this rule
further address and take into consideration previous mandates as
[[Page 45070]]
well as laws passed by Congress to equip our nation with better means
to detect and combat fraud, abuse, and noncompliance associated with
nonimmigrant students. DHS acknowledges that the agency possesses
statutory tools to ensure continuous reporting for foreign students and
concluded that this final rule is necessary to provide additional tools
to ensure the integrity of nonimmigrant student programs, including
fraud detection and national security protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ See Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act
of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56, Section 416.
\246\ See HSPD-2, supra note 17.
\247\ The 9/11 Commission report, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS also disagrees with the commenter who asserts that the proposed
rule was ``a gross and purposeful misrepresentation of the intent
behind student visas.'' The rule does not change the intent behind
student visas. The main purpose of the rule is to effectively enforce
compliance with the statutory inadmissibility grounds related to
unlawful presence and to mitigate the risks found in the D/S framework.
The change to a fixed period of stay does not impact a nonimmigrant
student's ability to pursue and complete an education in the United
States.
DHS recognizes the importance of safeguarding individual liberty
interests and is committed to upholding privacy and civil rights
protections. The authority to collect biometrics and conduct interviews
is grounded in existing statutory and regulatory provisions, including
those enacted by Congress to ensure the integrity of the U.S.
immigration system.\248\ These measures are intended to enhance
identity verification, prevent fraud, and protect national security,
while maintaining procedural fairness. DHS is committed to minimizing
any adverse consequences and will continue to work with educational
institutions to support their vital role in international education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ See HSA (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135); 6 U.S.C. 112; 6
U.S.C. 202; INA sec. 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103; INA sec. 235, 8 U.S.C.
1225; 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9); 8 CFR 103.16; 8 CFR 235.3(b); and 8 CFR
264.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Statutory Basis, Academic Program Regulation, and Congressional
Intent
Comments: Commenters argued that the proposed rule introduces
constraints lacking statutory basis and contradicts decades of
regulatory practice, stating INA Section 101(a)(15)(F) defines F-1
students as bona fide nonimmigrants pursuing a full course of study,
and it does not restrict students from pursuing multiple degrees at the
same level. A commenter stated that when the Immigration and
Naturalization Service adopted D/S in 1979, it was introduced to save
resources and allow for schools to monitor students effectively. One
commenter noted that congress has not imposed fixed admission terms
instead authorizing admissions ``for the purpose'' of pursuing a course
of study, cultural exchange or media activity and that since Congress
spoke in broad terms, agencies should not narrow access through
restrictive rulemaking without clear statutory intent (see INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), emphasizing that deference is
limited where Congress has expressed intent). Several commenters noted
that while INA section 214(a) provides DHS the broad discretion to
determine stays, extensions of admissions, along with the ``time and
conditions of admission,'' it does not support removing the
longstanding D/S framework without clear congressional directive.\249\
One commenter expanded on that suggesting that the proposed rule
imposes duplicative requirements on already well-regulated groups and
instead, focusing on higher-risk categories would be consistent with
statutory intent. Commenters reasoned that Congress did not authorize
DHS to regulate the specifics of academic programs pursued by F-1
students, concluding that decisions regarding changes in degree
programs should remain within the academic discretion of students and
their schools. Several commenters stated the congressional intent in
creating the F-1, J-1, and I visa categories was to promote academic,
educational, journalistic, and cultural exchange and the proposed rule
undermines that intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ A commenter referenced Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA,
573 U.S. 302 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: As for the commenters who asserted that this final rule
introduces a constraint that lacks a statutory basis, Section
101(a)(15)(F) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F) does not explicitly
authorize students to pursue multiple degrees at the same level under
the same admission period. Students can change their educational
objectives after their first year of study if they pursue a degree
below the graduate level. DHS balanced the interests of the students
against preventing fraud and abuse and has determined this approach
provides flexibility for students while still upholding the goals of
the rule change in preventing fraud and abuse. DHS has seen situations
where students exploit the F-1 visa system to stay in the United States
for the longest duration possible. DHS has identified students who
change their major numerous times without demonstrating a legitimate
academic need. Some of these students will concurrently participate in
unauthorized paid labor. DHS believes this type of fraud and abuse will
be curtailed with restrictions on changes in degrees. For F
nonimmigrants wishing to remain beyond their authorized period of
admission, they will need to apply for an EOS or to depart and reenter
the United States through other lawful means.
DHS disagrees with the comment that this rule is regulating the
specifics of the academic programs pursued by F-1 students. DHS in this
rule is clarifying the time requirements and conditions for admission
to ensure aliens' purpose in seeking admission as nonimmigrants remains
consistent, while eliminating fraud, abuse, and noncompliance with the
statutory requirements. This includes maintaining status in accordance
with the original basis on which their admission to the United States
was authorized. This rule does not direct schools in how they offer
courses of study, operate their classrooms, or academic programs.
DHS agrees with the comment that the November 22, 1978, final rule
\250\ that amended the regulations to admit F-1 students for a D/S, was
designed to permit more efficient use of resources.\251\ However, DHS
also notes that the legacy INS subsequently amended admission periods
for F-1 students which at times included elimination of the D/S
framework. Specifically, on January 23, 1981, D/S was eliminated for
all nonimmigrant students.\252\ As noted in the final rule, the
implementation of the D/S framework served to ease administrative
workload for the legacy INS and educational institutions but resulted
``in questionable control over foreign students and has contributed to
problems in record keeping.'' \253\ With the proposed rule, DHS is
revisiting again and amending the regulations regarding the D/S
framework to address and deter fraud, exploitation, and abuse in
connection with the D/S framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ See 43 FR 54618 (Nov. 22, 1978).
\251\ See 43 FR 32306 (July 26, 1978).
\252\ See 46 FR 7267 (Jan. 23, 1981).
\253\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS disagrees with the commenters who assert that DHS already has
the statutory tools to ensure compliance and that Congress, in creating
SEVP and SEVIS, did not specifically mention a disapproval of the D/S
framework and therefore, it should not be eliminated. DHS notes that
any EOS application will be adjudicated by USCIS and USCIS will
continue to monitor its resource allocations and make adjustments as
appropriate.
[[Page 45071]]
DHS appreciates commenters' concerns regarding statutory authority,
congressional intent, and the longstanding use of the D/S framework for
F-1, J-1, and I nonimmigrants. DHS respectfully disagrees that the rule
exceeds statutory authority or undermines congressional intent for the
reasons outlined in sec. IV.P.1.a above, titled Proposed Rule Exceeds
Statutory Authority and Congressional Intent, and within the Legal
Authority section in sec. III.A While Congress has authorized admission
``for the purpose'' of pursuing a course of study, cultural exchange,
or media activity, it has not mandated the D/S framework or prohibited
DHS from adopting fixed admission periods. The D/S framework is a
regulatory construct, not a statutory requirement.
DHS recognizes the historical reliance on D/S, and it has carefully
considered the impact of this rule. DHS has included provisions within
the rule to minimize disruption and maintain flexibility for bona fide
students, exchange visitors, and media representatives. DHS maintains
the periodic review of nonimmigrant status imposed by this rule through
fixed periods of admission and EOS processes is appropriate to ensure
compliance with U.S. immigration laws, deter fraud and abuse, and to
protect program integrity.
DHS also notes that the rule does not impose duplicative
requirements but rather aligns the oversight of F, J, and I
nonimmigrants with other nonimmigrant categories that are subject to
fixed admission periods and periodic review. DHS believes this approach
is consistent with its statutory authority and consistent with the
goals of this rulemaking.
d. Chevron, Major Questions Doctrine, and Legislative History
Comments: Several commenters mentioned Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) in that Congress
has not mandated the elimination of the D/S framework and the
legislative history suggests Congress contemplated flexible admission
periods tied to program completion. While one commenter cited West
Virginia v. EPA, arguing that federal agencies lack authority to decide
major questions with significant economic and political impact without
clear congressional authorization, and claimed the proposed rule would
fall under this major questions doctrine due to its substantial
financial impact. One commenter wrote that no judicial decision has
questioned the statutory basis for D/S admissions and that Matter of
Yamazato, 25 I&N Dec. 581 (BIA 2011) (sic) acknowledged D/S as an
established framework serving legitimate administrative purpose.
Response: DHS disagrees that this rule implicates the major
questions doctrine. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the
major questions doctrine is reserved for extraordinary cases involving
``agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress
could reasonably be understood to have granted.'' \254\ This is not
such an extraordinary case in which Congressional intent is unclear.
Here, DHS is acting within its statutory authority to provide clear
guidelines and a fixed time period for a specific class of nonimmigrant
admission to the United States, including the ability to request to
extend their stay. Additionally, this change is limited in scope, and
the impact is not comparable to other government actions that courts
determined implicate the major questions doctrine.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ See W. Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 724, (2022).
\255\ See Id. (restructuring the American energy market by
shifting electricity generation away from coal and toward cleaner
energy sources); Dep't of Education v. Brown, 600 U.S. 551 (2023)
(cancelling hundreds of billions of dollars in federal student loan
debt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS notes that the comment invoking Chevron, U.S. Inc. v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) is moot because Chevron was
overruled by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 396 (2024).
Additionally, the commenter argues that legislative history
demonstrates implicit Congressional approval of a D/S framework;
however, the commenter did not include any specific legislative history
it relied on. DHS believes the changes are consistent with
Congressional intent and have reviewed the legislative history in
preparation for this rulemaking. DHS could not identify the case
mentioned by commenter of Matter of Yamazato and is therefore unable to
respond to that particular comment.
2. Legal Concerns Under the APA and Due Process
a. Comment Period Is Insufficient and Lacks Advance Notice
Comments: Commenters expressed concerns that the comment period was
insufficient and that the rule lacked appropriate advance notice. Many
commenters emphasized that the 30-day (sic) comment period was
inadequate for a rule of such complexity and significance, and some
said it violates the requirements in the APA. Many commenters requested
an extension of the comment period to a minimum of 60 days, with some
suggesting 90 or 120 days would be more appropriate. Some of the
reasons for this additional time, referenced by commenters, include the
rule's complexity, impact, controversial nature, and change to
longstanding policy; the longer comment period for SEVIS and USCIS
forms, which suggested to the commenter that the more substantial
proposed rule warranted at least the same duration; the publication of
the NPRM while institutions and communities beginning their academic
years, which commenters said was one of the busiest times of year for
higher institutions; and Executive Orders 12866 and 14219. Commenters
said E.O. 12866 directs agencies to provide at least 60 days for public
comment on significant regulatory actions, and some commenters reported
E.O. 14219 instructs that ``[a]gencies shall continue to follow the
processes set out in [E.O.] 12866 for submitting regulations for review
by OIRA.'' Commenters noted DHS's acknowledgement in the NPRM that this
proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' that is
``economically significant'' under E.O. 12866. One commenter generally
expressed concern that the proposed rule is excessively complex, making
meaningful engagement and comprehension difficult.
Commenters emphasized that the 30-day period did not allow
sufficient time to gather necessary data, including for Freedom of
Information Act requests, analyze the rule's effects, and consult with
specialists. Commenters stated that meaningful public comments required
time to collect accurate information on student program completion
timelines, extension needs, and transfer statistics, as well as to
assess administrative, financial, and operational impacts. One
commenter expressed concern that the short public comment period gave
the impression that DHS was trying to avoid transparency and public
scrutiny by rushing the rulemaking process. Additionally, commenters
stated that the timing of the rule's publication at the beginning of
the academic year was particularly problematic for higher education
institutions, as it coincided with one of their busiest periods when
they were managing new student arrivals and fulfilling federal
reporting requirements.
Finally, commenters noted the lack of advance notice about the
rule, pointing out that it was absent from the Unified Agenda until
September 4, 2025, one week after its publication, despite the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requiring agencies to publish
[[Page 45072]]
semiannual regulatory agendas describing planned regulatory actions.
Response: The APA does not mandate a specific minimum duration for
public comments, and DHS fully complied with the legal requirements for
providing notice to seek input from the general public in accordance
with the APA.\256\ DHS recognizes this is a significant rule and that
E.O. 12866 encourages agencies to provide ``not less than 60 days'' for
public comment on significant regulatory actions, but E.O. 12866 does
not impose this as a binding requirement. Here, DHS provided a 32-day
comment period, which balances the need for stakeholder input with the
urgency of implementing the rule. DHS received robust public
participation, as is evidenced by the nearly 22,000 public comments
received addressing a wide range of issues including technical,
economic, and operational impacts. This demonstrates stakeholders were
able to analyze the rule and provide thoughtful feedback within the
allowed timeframe. Furthermore, comments on the information collection
described in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section were due by
October 27, 2025--61 days after publication. DHS strongly rejects the
assertion that the 32-day comment period was intended to avoid
transparency or public scrutiny and that the timing of the proposed
rule was problematic given the start of the academic year. DHS received
numerous detailed comments from stakeholders including higher education
institutions and students. DHS remains committed to an open and
transparent rulemaking process and has carefully reviewed all comments
received to ensure that stakeholder concerns are fully considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ See 5 U.S.C. 553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS acknowledges that some commenters requested an extension of the
comment period to 60, 90, or even 120 days due to the timing,
complexity, and significance of the rule, however, the commenters
generally did not explain what additional issues they would raise
during a longer comment period. The volume of comments--as well as
their breadth--reflects an ample consideration of issues during the
comment period. DHS acknowledges that some commenters expressed
challenges related to gathering data, consulting specialists, and
engaging with other stakeholders. DHS notes that many commenters were
able to provide detailed, evidence-based feedback including potential
impacts, proposed alternatives, and specific concerns regarding
implementation. As previously mentioned, given the volume of detailed
comments, the 32-day comment period on the NPRM and 61-day comment
period on the PRA was sufficient for meaningful public input and DHS
appreciates the feedback it received. DHS acknowledges the comparison
made by commenters between the 61-day comment period for SEVIS and
USCIS form changes and the 32-day period for this rule. However, DHS
notes that the PRA requires a 60-day comment period for information
collection requests related to forms.
While some commenters noted that the rulemaking appeared in the
Unified Agenda shortly after the NPRM published, DHS complied with
applicable requirements under the RFA, particularly 5 U.S.C. 602(d).
The NPRM was published in the Federal Register ensuring public access,
transparency, and that the comment period provided sufficient
opportunity for stakeholders to respond. DHS complied with applicable
requirements under the RFA and E.O. 12866.
b. Administrative Procedure Act Concerns
Comments: Commenters argued the proposed rule violates the APA by
being arbitrary and capricious, citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), which requires
agencies to provide reasoned explanations connecting facts to policy
choices. Commenters stated the NPRM failed to meet this standard by
overstating security benefits while understating economic costs,
ignoring successful existing oversight approaches, and proposing
solutions insufficiently targeted to the identified problems.
Commenters claimed the proposed rule would create arbitrary categories,
disproportionate burdens, and categorical restrictions on all visa
holders to address limited abuses. A commenter said that DHS's
``suspected in-country overstay'' data is an upper-bound proxy that can
overcount actual violations, with recent DHS reports showing suspected
F/M/J in-country overstay at approximately 2.45 percent in FY 2024,
which they characterized as far from a systemic crisis. Commenters said
the rule fails to consider less restrictive alternatives, such as
tiered caps by degree level, longer caps, graduated oversight for
extended-stay students, enhanced institutional accountability,
technology-based monitoring, and risk-based screening. A commenter
opined that failure to evaluate these alternative regulatory models
could expose the final rule to legal vulnerability under the APA.
Some commenters suggested stakeholder engagement to identify
evidence-based targeted solutions, ensure compliance and preserve
flexibility. One commenter noted that E.O. 12866 also directs each
agency to ``explore and, where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms
for developing regulation, including negotiated rulemaking.''
One commenter raised concerns about potential regulatory takings,
stating that foreign students have substantial financial investments in
U.S. education that could be rendered worthless by arbitrary rule
changes. The commenter cited Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S.
393 (1922), to argue that government action constitutes a taking when
it goes ``too far'' in restricting property rights.
Commenters noted the rule revives a rule which was withdrawn in
2021 without addressing prior objections or providing new
justification, despite overwhelming opposition to the previous
proposal.
Response: DHS disagrees that the rulemaking is arbitrary and
capricious. The NPRM details the need for changes to the F, J, and I
classifications, specifically to alleviate fraud and abuse, enhance
national security, improve program integrity and oversight, reduce
overstays, and provide clarity for stakeholders regarding authorized
period of stay and extension processes. The rule is reasonably related
to the objective advanced and is not arbitrary or capricious.
DHS acknowledges concerns about whether the proposed solution is
appropriate. Replacing D/S with a fixed admission period is necessary
to increase oversight, deter fraud, and address national security
risks. The 2024 CBP Entry Exit Overstay Report shows that student and
exchange visitors, excluding those from Canada and Mexico, had a
suspected in-country overstay rate of 2.84 percent in FY 2023, which is
more than double the general suspected overstay rate, further
justifying the need for more effective monitoring.\257\ Fixed admission
periods provide clear end dates, facilitate identification and
deterrence of overstays, and ensure nonimmigrants who remain beyond
their authorized period begin accruing unlawful presence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ See Entry/Exit Overstay Report, FY 2024, supra note 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS recognizes the alternatives posed by commenters and has
considered alternatives to the requirements adopted in this final rule.
DHS determined the selected approach is appropriate to address program
integrity and national security concerns. While the proposed
[[Page 45073]]
rule does not adopt measures such as tiered caps, extended durations,
or technology-based monitoring, DHS believes the rule strikes an
appropriate balance between flexibility for students and the need for
oversight. DHS appreciates the suggestions for stakeholder engagement
and will continue to consider public input in the rulemaking process,
consistent with E.O. 12866 and the APA.
The Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, cited by the commenter, does
not apply here. That case involved a regulatory taking of property
rights. The constitution does not provide property rights to higher
education. Additionally, this final rule does not take away any
nonimmigrant's current visa. As explained elsewhere in this rule, the
transition rules provide adequate notice and extensive lead time for
nonimmigrants with a current F, J, or I visa to complete their work in
the United States. The final rule also permits F, J, and I
nonimmigrants to apply for an EOS, if they choose to pursue that route.
DHS acknowledges the publication of a similar NPRM in 2020, the
significant public feedback received on that NPRM, and the withdrawal
of that NPRM in 2021. Since then, DHS has reviewed current policy,
executive orders, and operational needs, and has updated its
justifications in this rulemaking. The current proposal is tailored to
address vulnerabilities in the immigration system, protect program
integrity, and enhance oversight, while balancing the interests of
stakeholders.
c. Change in Position and Reliance Interests
Comments: Commenters stated that DHS failed to consider the
significant reliance interests of students, scholars, universities, and
sponsors who have depended on the D/S framework for decades, with some
commenters citing DHS v. Regents of the University of California, 140
S. Ct. 1891 (2020). Commenters wrote that universities and students
have structured programs, admissions, finances, and research around D/
S, and one described the NPRM's discussion of alternatives to preserve
these interests as cursory relative to the scale of disruption the rule
would cause. Several commenters said the proposed rule marks a
significant change from long established regulatory practices and due
to that change, DHS must provide a reasoned explanation for its
decision when departing from longstanding policy and account for
reliance interests noting that the shift is broad and does not show
that D/S is failing and that the reliance interests of current F-1s,
Js, employers, schools that planned budgets and staffing under a D/S
framework were not fully addressed.
Response: DHS recognizes that students, their families, and
educational institutions have structured their academic, professional,
and personal plans based on the longstanding D/S policy. DHS has
carefully considered the reliance interests of F, J, and I visa
holders, as well as those universities, sponsors, and employers who
have structured programs and operations around the D/S framework. While
DHS recognizes that some may prefer the D/S model, and this rule
represents a change from longstanding practice, DHS has provided a
reasoned explanation for this policy shift, consistent with Supreme
Court precedent.
DHS has considered alternatives, including a 2-year admission
period and maintaining the status quo, but determined that the fixed
periods established in this rule best balance oversight with the
structure of post-secondary education, exchange visitors, and foreign
media. DHS evaluated less restrictive alternatives and stakeholder
suggestions but concluded that the fixed-period approach is the most
effective and appropriate solution to enhance oversight, program
integrity, and national security.
The rule provides adequate notice and a transition period to
minimize disruption, allowing affected individuals to complete their
work or apply for an EOS, which is similar to other nonimmigrant
categories, and clear guidance for students and school officials. These
measures are intended to provide affected individuals and institutions
with sufficient time and flexibility to adjust to the new requirements.
DHS believes this approach balances reliance interests with the need to
address vulnerabilities in the current system.
d. Due Process Concerns
Comments: Several commenters expressed procedural concerns that the
proposed rule would violate principles of due process. Commenters cited
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), to argue that foreign
students possess constitutionally protected procedural due process
rights and that the risk of erroneous deprivation of an interested
individual while safeguards are weak. Commenters also cited Landon v.
Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982), to argue that foreign students have
constitutionally protected procedural due process rights associated
with their immigration status. Several commenters expressed concern at
the serious risk of losing lawful status without meaningful procedural
safeguards or an opportunity to contest the decision or seek
reconsideration. Several commenters noted that USCIS denials are
discretionary and offer no right to appeal, increasing uncertainty and
risk of being in an unlawful status, arbitrary decisions, and forced
departures if USCIS delays processing. A commenter stated that the
elimination of the ability to appeal extensions not only has
implications for students' lives, but also poses issues related to
procedural fairness, the APA, and due process. Several commenters wrote
that the proposed rule would limit academic mobility without procedural
safeguards and deprive students of due process and equal protection
including deprivation of life, liberty, and property under the Fifth
Amendment, as well as their freedom to pursue education. One commenter
stated the I-visa restrictions targeting the PRC lacks narrow tailoring
and would be a nationality-based distinction that lacks compelling
evidence. Another commenter noted that while noncitizens lack an
absolute right to enter or remain in the U.S., the fixed admissions
combined with restrictions on pursuing additional degrees raise due
process and equal protection concerns also noting that in Yick Wo. v.
Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized that
discriminatory enforcement against noncitizens violated equal
protection and Plyler v. Doe (1982) confirmed that noncitizens in the
U.S. cannot be denied public education. One commenter stated that the
proposed 2-year cap for nationals of countries with high overstay rates
or limited diplomatic cooperation creates a nationality-based
classification raising equal protection concerns under Yick Wo. v.
Hopkins. Another commenter noted that the rule treats F, J and I visa
holders differently than comparable nonimmigrant categories such as H-
1B or L-1 workers and that this differential treatment lacks a
compelling government interest and disproportionately harms students,
researchers, and journalists engaged in lawful activities raising equal
protection concerns. Referencing due process issues, several commenters
described fundamental rights that could be harmed under the proposed
rule that could deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property.
Several commenters noted that currently D/S lawful presence is tied to
lawful behavior offering stability and predictability whereas a fixed
time period would expose compliant individuals to premature removal
violating the
[[Page 45074]]
principle that the government action must be fair, rational, and
consistent with due process. One commenter noted the approach that
presuming all foreign students are potential security risks constitutes
collective punishment and vague references to ``national security'' is
not a legally sufficient basis for imposing sweeping burdens that will
harm stakeholders undermining fairness and due process.
Response: DHS appreciates commentors' concerns regarding the rule's
impact on substantive and procedural due process rights. There is no
federal constitutional right to higher education or practical training
opportunities. Additionally, in the event an F, J, or I nonimmigrant
decides to extend their related program activities, such as education
or the engagement in authorized post completion practical training
beyond 4-years, there is a process to apply for an EOS. DHS understands
that applications are time sensitive. However, DHS does not believe
that additional safeguards are needed in this rule and disagrees with
the commenter's assertion that USCIS decisions are arbitrary. In the
event that there is a denial of extension, USCIS has in place a process
to reopen or reconsider the denial. This rule does not change that
process.
Furthermore, DHS disagrees with the commenter that the
``elimination'' of appeals of extensions denials raises issues of
procedural fairness, the APA, and due process. The regulations that
existed prior to the implementation of this final rule,\258\ provided
that the denial of an extension or amendment of stay request may not be
appealed. This is not a new concept, and the same standards have been
applicable for EOS applications in most of the other nonimmigrant
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ See 8 CFR 214.1(c)(7) (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS also disagrees with comments about a 2-year cap for nationals
of countries with high overstay rates or limited diplomatic
cooperation, as this is not part of the proposed rule or the final
rule. Further, as it relates to I fixed admission period relating to
the PRC, the changes in this rule are consistent with 8 CFR
214.2(i)(1)(ii) (2025), in which the implementing published rulemakings
explained the rationale as to why passport holders of the PRC (other
than a Hong Kong SAR or a Macau SAR passport) were admitted for a fixed
period of stay.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ See generally 85 FR 27645 (May 11, 2020); 87 FR 61959
(Oct. 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With specific time caps and additional program requirements,
immigration authorities will have an effective mechanism to implement
appropriate oversight to reduce fraud and abuse. The rule change sets
clear and defined expectations for program of study completion for the
universities and nonimmigrant students. Nonimmigrant students will be
able to rely on a definitive end date and be able to plan accordingly
to complete the program within the timeframe or apply for an extension
of status. DHS disagrees with the comment that imposing fixed-term
limits on F nonimmigrant students, as well as J or I visa holders, will
treat such classifications differently than other nonimmigrant
categories such as H-1B or L-1 workers or disproportionately harm them.
In fact, the rule harmonizes the F, J, and I classifications with the
H-1B and L-1 classification as both the H-1B and L-1 classifications
have fixed-term limits. See generally 8 CFR 214.2(h); 8 CFR 214.2(l).
Moreover, a definitive end date will reduce potential fraud and abuse
as discussed within this final rule. For F nonimmigrant students, DHS
believes any reliance by the nonimmigrant student on interests such as
economic freedom and familial relationships is misplaced. Under the
rule, the express language presented to applicants throughout the
process of applying for admission to the United States will clearly
delineate a conclusive time limit on the nonimmigrant student's ability
to remain in the United States at the conclusion of their program of
study or authorized post-completion practical training. DHS also notes
that visa applications can be denied for a variety of reasons, such as
if a nonimmigrant student is unable to establish familial ties in their
home country or assets or lacks a specific intent to return to their
home country upon the conclusion of their program of study.\260\ DHS
interests and policy concerns, to include national security and the
prevention of visa abuse, outweigh any reliance interests by the
nonimmigrant. Increased oversight and stricter compliance will reduce
national security risks and deter utilization of visas for purposes
other than education as well as reduce the number of nonimmigrant
overstays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ See USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 2, Part F, Chap. 2--
Eligibility Requirements, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-f-chapter-2 (last visited Feb. 4, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the comments on substantive due process, the proposed
changes are sufficiently related to DHS's objective of preventing
fraud, abuse, and noncompliance of applicable statutory requirements
because they ensure that F, J, and I nonimmigrants do not remain in the
United States indefinitely. DHS disagrees with the assertion the U.S.
does not have a compelling interest in establishing specific conditions
for nonimmigrants based on their intended purpose for entering the U.S.
such as H-1B or L-1 compared to F, J, and I applicants for admission.
DHS has a compelling government interest to obtain timely and accurate
information about the activities these aliens have engaged in and plan
to engage in during their temporary stay in the United States.
As to the comments asserting that the final rule interferes with
constitutionally protected rights, such as equal protection, due
process and the right to pursue higher education, the Department
disagrees that the cases the commenter cited support these assertions.
Yick Wo. v. Hopkins is inapplicable and distinguishable here because
that case dealt with general regulation of local commerce and the Court
held that the government's enforcement policy was intended to drive out
Chinese-owned small businesses. This final rule regulates certain
nonimmigrant aliens specifically and they are intended to strengthen
the integrity of the nonimmigrant classifications while enhancing
national security. Similarly, the constitution does not provide a right
to a higher education and Plyler v. Doe is distinguishable and
inapplicable in this context because that case involved immigrant
students who had been denied a free public education in violation of
the equal protection clause.\261\ DHS considered the proposed
regulation in light of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), which
discusses in part the balance of an individual's due process rights
regarding a property interest and the risk of erroneous deprivation
against the government's interests. Congress gave DHS the authority to
regulate the time and conditions of admission of any F, J, and I
nonimmigrants to accomplish the purposes identified in the statutory
visa immigrant categories. Assuming that Mathews v. Eldridge even
applies in this case, the governmental interest to prevent and reduce
issues of fraud, abuse, and national security threats outweighs any
individual interest in a potentially indefinite entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ See San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
1, 35 (1973) (holding that public education is not a fundamental
right protected by the constitution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Equal Protection Concerns
Comments: Describing equal protection concerns, many commenters
expressed opposition to the proposed
[[Page 45075]]
rule. For example, a commenter stated that Federal actions must comply
with equal protection principles, writing that categorical restrictions
on program changes would harm students following the proposed rule by
limiting academic mobility without providing individualized findings on
immigration status. A commenter noted that courts have long recognized
that the federal government is also subject to equal protection
principles under the Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause as established
in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). Several commenters raised
equal protection concerns about the differential treatment of graduate
and undergraduate students in the proposed rule creating arbitrary
classifications and lacking any legitimate government purpose, and
about the arbitrary burdens imposed on F, J, and I categories of
nonimmigrants without trying to individualize risks. One commenter
expressed concern that the 4-year fixed admission period could violate
equal protection principles by ``treating identical student conduct
(maintaining lawful status) differently based solely on program
duration.'' Several commenters noted the disparate impact of the
proposed rule on protected classes, including indirect gender
discrimination in educational access, socioeconomic barriers created by
the financial impact of multiple extension applications, and religious
or cultural barriers for students from countries with different
academic calendars or cultural obligations disproportionately burdened
by fixed-period requirements. A commenter stated that the 90-day
admission limit for Chinese nationals creates questions of equal
protection under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
commenter remarked that in the past courts reversed policies where
classifications were based on nationality without sufficient
justification Another commenter stated that students from certain
countries may face disproportionate burdens due to adjudication
backlogs or discriminatory scrutiny, raising Equal Protection Clause
concerns under the Fifth Amendment, and cited to Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Pe[ntilde]a, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
Response: DHS appreciates the feedback and clarifies that the rule
is designed to comply with federal law, including equal protection
principles, by applying its provisions uniformly to all nonimmigrants
in F, J, and I status, without regard to gender, religion,
socioeconomic status, or cultural background. Further, the rule
provides various mechanisms of changing educational objectives and
transferring to SEVP-certified schools, so long as the nonimmigrant
meets various requirements (such as maintaining status, completing an
academic year--absent extenuating circumstances, and not being on
academic probation or suspension). These provisions are designed to
support academic mobility while maintaining compliance with immigration
laws.
DHS disagrees with the commenters that state that the rule's
distinction between graduate and undergraduate students would violate
principles of equal protection. Congress gave DHS the authority to set
appropriate conditions on nonimmigrants to accomplish the purposes
identified in the statutory nonimmigrant visa categories. The F-1
student classification, as defined by INA sec. 101(a)(15)(F),
encompasses aliens seeking to enter the United States as a bona fide
student to pursue a course of study at, including but not limited to,
colleges, universities, academic high schools, or elementary schools.
DHS recognizes that bona fide students, upon or nearing completion of
their initial course of study, may reasonably elect to pursue higher
levels of education. Conversely, movement within the same education
level after completion of a program raises significant concerns over
whether an F-1 nonimmigrant intends to simply prolong their stay in the
United States. DHS believes that F-1 students with legitimate academic
goals will be able to foresee their academic trajectory before or
during the school application process, especially on the graduate level
where students should already know their goal for attending graduate
school. This rule allows a graduate student to apply to a program with
two concurrent degrees, such as a J.D./M.B.A, but does not allow a
graduate student to change direction mid-stream or to seek a second
degree at the same level after entering a program. Years of experience
have shown DHS that, of F-1 students who seek a degree at the same or
lower level after entering an academic program, a significant number do
so to prolong their stay in the United States.
The rule therefore serves DHS's legitimate purpose in setting
conditions to accommodate bona fide students who come to the United
States temporarily to pursue and ultimately complete a full course of
study, while restricting aliens seeking to improperly rely on the F-1
student classification in order to remain in the United States
indefinitely or for nefarious reasons. Even if the commenters were
correct that the rule has a disparate impact on students at different
levels of study, DHS finds it would not violate the Fifth Amendment's
equal protection guarantee because the rule does not involve a suspect
classification or burden any fundamental right.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\262\ See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 (1993) (holding that
``a classification neither involving fundamental rights nor
proceeding along suspect lines is accorded a strong presumption of
validity''); DeSousa v. Reno, 190 F.3d 175, 184 (3d Cir. 1999)
(``[D]isparate treatment of different groups of aliens triggers only
rational basis review under equal protection doctrine. Under this
minimal standard of review, a classification is accorded `a strong
presumption of validity' and the government has no obligation to
produce evidence to sustain its rationality.'' (internal citations
omitted)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS disagrees with the commenters that state that the proposed
rule's imposition of a 4-year maximum admission period for F-1
nonimmigrants violates equal protection principles. The proposed rule
applies the same calculation of authorized stay to all F-1
nonimmigrants.
DHS recognizes the importance of ensuring that the rule does not
create unintended disparate impacts on protected classes. The rule's
provisions are carefully tailored to achieve legitimate government
objectives, such as preventing visa abuse and ensuring compliance with
immigration laws, while minimizing burdens on nonimmigrants. For
example, the rule provides automatic extensions of stay and employment
authorization for up to 240 days while applications are pending,
reducing the financial burden associated with filing multiple extension
applications. The rule also includes grace periods and flexibility for
program changes and extensions of stay to accommodate nonimmigrants
facing extenuating circumstances, while also allowing extensions of
stay for compelling academic or medical reasons or circumstances beyond
the student's control. These various provisions ensure that the rule is
applied fairly and equitably.
In addition, DHS does not believe that this rule raises an equal
protection issue, nor that it targets Chinese nationals or any other
particular groups. Indeed, section 101(a)(15)(I) of the INA
establishing the I nonimmigrant classification for representatives of
foreign information media requires that such a visa or status be
provided ``upon a basis of reciprocity.'' Further, section 214(a)(1) of
the INA provides the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) broad
authority to administer and enforce the immigration and naturalization
laws of the United States and prescribe regulations specifying the
period of admission, as well as any conditions, for the admission of
nonimmigrants to the
[[Page 45076]]
United States. See INA sec. 103(a)(1), 214(a)(1). Given the Secretary's
authority to promulgate rules specifying the periods of admission and
the statutory requirement to take into account reciprocity for the I
nonimmigrant classification, this rule establishes a fixed period of up
to 90-days, with the possibility of additional 90-days upon filing EOS
applications. See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(3)(ii), (5)(iii). While
reciprocity is one factor that the Secretary takes into account for
establishing the admission period for I nonimmigrants, the Secretary
may also consider additional factors including, input from the DoS, and
such other factors as may affect the U.S. interest.
f. Human Rights
Comments: Some commenters raised human rights concerns, arguing
that the rule is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR); including Articles 13, 19, and 26; and undermines fairness and
respect for human dignity. One commenter said the rule impedes equal
access to higher education by creating administrative and financial
barriers for foreign students, referencing UDHR Article 26 as
recognizing education as a human right. The commenters also said UDHR
Article 13 guarantees the right to freedom of movement, which the
commenter said is curtailed by repeated extensions by students and
scholars under the threat of status termination. Other commenters
referenced UDHR Article 19, which guarantees the right ``to seek,
receive and impart information . . . regardless of frontiers.''
Commenters stated the rule undermines compliance for I-visa holders.
A commenter also expressed concern that the proposed rule violates
the United States' commitments as a party to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), stating arbitrary limits on
internal media representatives violates the commitment in ICCPR Article
19, which protects freedom of expression and the right ``to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.''
Commenters remarked that previous court cases including
Medell[iacute]n v. Texas and Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy affirm
that the United States is obligated to uphold ratified treaties, or at
a minimum, interpret statutes consistently with international law to
avoid conflicts.
Response: DHS recognizes the importance of human rights and
international treaty obligations, including Articles 13, 19, and 26 of
the UDHR and Article 19 of ICCPR. DHS does not intend to undermine
these commitments. The rule is designed to ensure the integrity of the
F, J, and I nonimmigrant programs and national security while also
supporting education, the free flow of information, and cultural
exchange. DHS believes the rule is consistent with U.S. law and
international obligations, as it does not prohibit access to education,
freedom of movement, or freedom of expression for qualified applicants.
The rule continues to provide opportunities for foreign students and
media representatives to study, work, and share information in the
United States, subject to statutory and regulatory requirements.
g. Additional Legal Concerns Related to F-Visas and Students
Comments: Several commenters said that the proposed rule undermines
the statutory and regulatory scheme related to F-Visas. A commenter
explained that 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i), requires an foreign student
be ``qualified to pursue a full course of study'' and enter the country
``solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study'' at a
qualifying college, university, or other academic institution
indicating that Congressional intent is for students to complete their
academic programs rather than be subject to external time limitations.
A commenter also referenced the INA's instruction that schools should
report termination of enrollment, reasoning this supports the argument
that F visa admissions should be governed by participation in academic
programs rather than external time constraints. A commenter asserted
that the administrative burdens the proposed rule would place on
students and schools attempting to fulfill course of study requirements
would be counter to the intent of the INA to support academic exchange.
Commenters raised concerns about academic program changes stating
the INA does not restrict students from pursuing multiple degrees at
the same level and that categorical prohibitions on graduate program
changes, first-year transfers, and same- or lower-level study bear
little relation to the discrete fraud risks, will harm students, and
exceeds the statutory authority. Several commenters mentioned the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) and
it was stated that there is a broad Congressional policy of promoting
access to higher education and nothing suggests that access to another
degree should be denied to qualified students simply because they
already hold a master's degree. Commenters recommended a narrower
approach to prohibit duplicative or substantially similar degrees at
the same level.
Several commenters expressed concerns about interference with
constitutionally protected interests, including academic freedom,
educational rights to pursue higher education without government
interference, association rights to maintain family relationships, and
the right to economic freedom to complete educational and employment
programs. Supreme Court cases, such as Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354
U.S. 234 (1957), and Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589
(1967), were referenced. Commenters emphasized that universities
possess constitutional rights to determine academic program structures
and student progression requirements and suggested that federal
restrictions on program flexibility interfere with institutional
academic freedom and are government overreach. A commenter also noted
that graduate research involves constitutionally protected expression,
and restrictions on program changes may force students to abandon
research projects. Another commenter stated the proposed rule is
against the constitutional principles that the U.S. was founded on
including the freedom to seek knowledge.
Several commenters noted that the rule could conflict with Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits nationality-based
discrimination in federally funded programs, as it treats nonimmigrants
as ``potential fraudsters'' and U.S. citizens as ``legitimate
learners.'' Several commenters stated the proposed rule is not tied to
a narrowly tailored legitimate government interest and therefore is
discrimination based on national origin including restricting academic
freedoms of F-1 students compared to their U.S. counterparts.
A commenter asserted that DHS might be required to consult with the
Department of Education (ED) and expressed concern that the rulemaking
process did not show evidence of consultation, including regarding
curricular calendars. The commenter further questioned whether the
rulemaking process included coordination with State and local agencies,
referencing 6 U.S.C. 112 (c)(1) (2024).
A commenter expressed that visa restrictions and uncertainty
created by the proposed rule would conflict with the U.S. policy
affirmed in the 2021 Joint Statement of Principles by the DoS and
Education of encouraging foreign students and undermine longstanding
policy goals to streamline immigration compliance.
[[Page 45077]]
Response: DHS appreciates the wide range of comments regarding the
statutory, regulatory, and policy implications of the proposed rule
related to F-visas. DHS recognizes commenters' concern about
Congressional intent under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i), including the
expectation that foreign students be able to complete their academic
programs, and the role of institutional reporting in maintaining
compliance. DHS reiterates that the rule does not prohibit a
nonimmigrant student from finishing a course of study or create an
external time constraint for completing a program; rather, it provides
clarification on the parameters for maintaining status and provides
mechanisms for extensions of stay for students who require additional
time to complete their programs.
DHS recognizes the concerns about administrative burdens imposed on
students and schools, believing that these burdens are counter to the
intent of the INA to support academic exchange. DHS reiterates that
this rule is designed to align F, J, and I nonimmigrant classifications
with other nonimmigrant categories that are admitted for fixed periods,
while still providing opportunities for extensions and continued study
where warranted. DHS will provide guidance to institutions and students
to support compliance and minimize disruption.
DHS also appreciates commenters' concerns regarding academic
program changes and the ability of students to pursue multiple degrees
at the same educational level. DHS recognizes that the INA does not
explicitly prohibit students from enrolling in more than one degree
program at the same level, and that the Higher Education Act reflects a
broad Congressional policy of promoting access to higher education. In
developing this rule, DHS sought to balance the need for program
integrity and fraud prevention with the importance of academic
flexibility and opportunity. DHS determined that certain limitations on
repeated or duplicative degree programs are necessary to deter abuse of
the nonimmigrant student visa process, while ensuring that qualified
students can continue to pursue legitimate academic goals. The rule is
not intended to deny access to higher education for qualified students,
but rather to prevent misuse of student status for purposes unrelated
to bona fide study.
DHS appreciates commenters' concerns regarding academic freedom,
association, and economic rights, and notes the Supreme Court cases
referenced. DHS respectfully disagrees that the rule violates
constitutional principles or interferes with academic freedom.
Recognizing the role of educational institutions as an integral part of
the Federal Government's national security responsibility of monitoring
foreign students studying in the United States, Congress authorized DHS
to regulate and oversee educational institutions certified by SEVP to
enroll nonimmigrant students.\263\ Further, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1)
provides broad discretion to DHS over time and condition requirements
for nonimmigrant students. SEVP certified schools, their programs of
study, and nonimmigrant students, have long been subject to
administrative requirements based on these Congressional mandates. DHS
believes the rule's changes impacting programs of study and
nonimmigrant student transfers are consistent with this statutory
authority and in line with the existing administrative burden on
nonimmigrant students and SEVP certified schools. The rule does not
dictate academic program content or structure, nor does it restrict
universities' ability to determine academic programs or students'
pursuit of knowledge. Additionally, the rule does not interfere with a
right to maintain family relationships, as family members are free to
maintain their relationships with F, J, and I nonimmigrants, regardless
of their status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ See 8 U.S.C. 1372 and 1762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS acknowledges the comment on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act's
prohibition on discrimination applies to recipients of federal funds.
However, that prohibition against discrimination does not prevent DHS
from setting out these eligibility requirements for F, J, and I
nonimmigrant visas, which (1) apply uniformly to all nonimmigrants in
F, J, and I status, without regard to gender, religion, socioeconomic
status, or cultural background; and (2) are intended to eliminate
fraud, abuse and noncompliance with INA 101(a)(15)(F)(i). DHS believes
that any Title VI challenges would be restricted to universities. It is
incumbent upon the universities to address non-discrimination during
their enrollment process and abide by the requirements as laid out in
Title VI.
The commenter cited 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(1) for the requirement
to consult with the ED. The requirement to consult with the ED under 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(1) relates to consultation about whether to
approve an institution of higher education; however, DHS did consult
with the ED prior to the publication of the NPRM and the final rule.
Additionally, 6 U.S.C. 112(c)(1)'s requirement to coordinate with State
and local agencies through DHS's Office of State and Local Coordination
does not apply to rulemaking affecting the SEVP program.
DHS disagrees with the comment that the final rule would be in
conflict with the 2021 Joint Statement of Principles. While DHS was not
a party to the Joint Statement to DoS and ED, the Joint Statement is
merely aspirational and not binding legal authority. The Joint
Statement states, ``We propose the following principles to guide our
approach to international education,'' and includes a series of
aspirational principles to guide the DoS and ED in their approach to
international education. Additionally, the Joint Statement is not in
conflict with this final rule as this final rule adds clarity and
parameters for nonimmigrant students. This final rule also aligns with
the President's Executive orders on immigration and national security.
See, e.g., E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign
Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Threats (Jan. 20,
2025). This rule creates certainty setting a fixed period of entry and
lowers opportunities for fraud and abuse thereby ensuring that the
classifications are used for the purpose it was intended by Congress.
DHS has outlined its legal authority for proceeding with this final
rule within the NPRM and throughout this final rule, including in the
comment responses included above under ``Proposed Rule Exceeds
Statutory Authority and Congressional Intent.'' DHS has carefully
considered the statutory, regulatory, constitutional, and policy issues
raised by commenters and has sought to ensure that the final rule
supports program integrity, compliance, the continued success of
foreign students and academic institutions in the United States.
h. Additional Legal Concerns Related to J-Visas and Exchange Visitors
Comments: Commenters raised concerns about DHS potentially
overstepping into DoS territory regarding the J-1 Exchange Visitor
Program. A commenter questioned why DHS was creating burdensome
regulations for a DoS-administered program, suggesting this would
increase bureaucracy, create inefficiencies, and convey hostility
toward exchange visitors, undermining the program's purpose. The
commenter stated that individual program objectives should not be
arbitrarily cut by 20 percent without clear and compelling
justification and represented an
[[Page 45078]]
unnecessary encroachment into DoS jurisdiction. Commenters suggested
the proposed rule might violate international treaties and agreements,
including the Fulbright-Hays Act, as J-1 exchange restrictions could
undermine the statutory purposes of promoting international educational
exchange. Other commenters wrote that the proposed restrictions on J-1
visitors would impact U.S. interests and undermine immigration policy
goals. They emphasized that the proposed J-1 restrictions would
jeopardize intellectual exchange that fuels innovation and strengthens
diplomatic ties.
Response: DHS appreciates commenters concerns about J visas. DHS
outlined the rationale for amending regulations for the J-1 Exchange
Visitor Program within the NPRM. This includes providing better
oversight and accountability, preventing fraud and abuse, obtaining
alignment with other nonimmigrant categories, national security,
program integrity, and obtaining clarity about the authorized period of
stay and process for requesting additional time, reducing confusion and
administrative burden.
DoS is responsible for the designation, oversight, and management
of the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program. DoS sets the program objectives,
approves sponsors, and establishes requirements for participation,
including the issuance of Form DS-2019. While DoS manages the program
content and sponsor relationship, DHS is responsible for admitting J-1
nonimmigrants, setting the conditions of their stay, and adjudicating
requests for extensions or change of status. DHS's authority to set
admission periods and conditions is found in INA 214(a) (8 U.S.C.
1184(a)), which grants DHS discretion over time and conditions of
admission for all nonimmigrants. DHS coordinates with DoS to ensure
program integrity and compliance.
DHS notes that the proposed rule does not alter the DoS' authority
to designate and oversee exchange visitor programs, nor does it change
the eligibility criteria or program objectives established under the
Fulbright-Hays Act or related agreements. The rule is intended to
enhance oversight and program integrity by establishing clear admission
periods and procedures for extensions of stay, consistent with DHS's
statutory authority under the INA.
DHS has carefully considered the statutory and policy objectives of
international exchange programs in drafting the final rule and believes
the changes are consistent with U.S. obligations and commitments. DHS
remains committed to supporting international educational exchange and
will continue to coordinate with the DoS to ensure the continued
success of the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program.
i. Additional Legal Concerns Related to I-Visas and Foreign Information
Media
Comments: Many commenters expressed opposition to the proposed rule
based on constitutional concerns including First Amendment protections
for freedom of speech and press. They argued that the changes could
lead to censorship, viewpoint discrimination, denied visas based on
retaliatory grounds, self-censorship, and a chilling effect on speech--
practices previously struck down by the courts. Commenters cited
several Supreme Court cases, including Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697
(1931), New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), Miami
Herald v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), and Branzburg v. Hayes, 408
U.S. 665, 707-08 (1972) to support their position that the rule would
conflict with established protections against government regulation of
press content and source confidentiality.
Commenters expressed concern that granting broad discretion to
immigration officers without clear standards could normalize content-
based evaluations, chilling investigative reporting and limiting
critical coverage. Another commenter stated that by forcing foreign
journalists to reapply frequently to extend an I nonimmigrant's stay,
the proposed rule creates serious risks that visas could be denied in
retaliation for unfavorable reporting, thereby placing government
officials in a position to punish journalists for exercising their
First Amendment rights. Commenters urged DHS to adopt safeguards to
protect journalistic independence, fairness, and constitutional
principles. This includes eliminating content-based review
requirements, promptly expunging information gained about an
applicant's reporting, providing protections for source
confidentiality, offering a transparent appeals process, and the right
to continue work during an appeal, and providing safeguards respecting
press freedom principles.
One commenter expressed concerns that the proposed rule is an
unconstitutional attempt to chill research, academic freedom, and
social media engagement. Commenters stated that the proposed reduction
of I visa durations and increased bureaucratic hurdles improperly
expand federal oversight over the work of foreign journalists and are
threats to cultural exchange, understanding U.S. society, and the depth
of reporting on American life and research. Commenters also noted that
these changes could violate treaty obligations that encourage education
and journalistic mobility. Commenters cautioned that the rule could
damage the United States' global reputation as a defender of press
freedom, reduce public access to independent international journalism,
undermine transparency in elections, and shrink the diversity of
viewpoints.
Others noted that the rule could disproportionally harm independent
journalists from repressive countries, who may not have a formal
relationship with their country's media and face repression.
One commenter suggested that the proposed rule would impact freedom
of association rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act
under 29 U.S.C. 157.
Commenters expressed that foreign journalists could also face
issues surrounding the First Amendment. While referencing a law review
article,\264\ one commenter stated that in the past, the Supreme Court
had allowed the Federal Government to ``target immigrants for
deportation based on political activities because of their immigration
status.'' Furthermore, in looking to Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S.
310 (2010), the commenter noted how the First Amendment can be
curtailed based on an individual's identity, and that, while there are
decisions that protect immigrant's freedom of speech, it is unclear if
this might be changed in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ The commenter referenced Kagan, M., When Immigrants Speak:
The Precarious Status of Non-Citizen Speech under the First
Amendment, 57 Boston College Law Review 1237 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS acknowledges that First Amendment rights apply to
aliens lawfully in the United States.\265\ DHS appreciates the
commenters' concerns and takes seriously the First Amendment concerns
surrounding any review of journalistic information. DHS does not intend
for the rule to chill speech, encourage censorship, or result in
viewpoint discrimination. As described in the proposed rule and
consistent with current practice, DHS will review content solely to
confirm that the foreign information media representative is engaging
in bona fide journalism as required under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(I). This
review is not intended to assess the substance, viewpoint, or subject
matter of the reporting, but rather to distinguish journalistic work,
as required under the INA for this category from
[[Page 45079]]
entertainment or promotional activities. Since these standards are
already applied throughout the Federal Government, DHS does not
anticipate that the changes in this rule will represent a significant
departure from current processing and therefore does not believe the
rule will hinder the free expression of First Amendment rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ See generally Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596
n.5 (1953) (quoting Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 161 (1945)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS immigration officers are trained to adjudicate EOS applications
in accordance with policy, regulations, and applicable law. Officers do
not have unfettered discretion to deny applications arbitrarily or in
retaliation for unfavorable reporting. Assertions that the rule would
permit punitive denials are speculative and unfounded.
DHS appreciates commenters' recommendations for additional
safeguards. The rule does not impose content-based review requirements
beyond what is necessary to confirm journalistic status, and it is not
intended to restrict academic or research endeavors, nor is it intended
to chill academic freedom or social media engagement. Protections for
source confidentiality remain in place, consistent with Supreme Court
precedent. While appeals are not available for Form I-539 denials,
applicants may file motions to reopen or reconsider, and denial notices
will continue to provide specific reasons for denial, except for
classified information, as required by regulation.
DHS notes that an alien seeking I classification must demonstrate
that he or she has foreign information media assignments, projects, and
work to continue staying in the United States, and DHS believes that
the 240-day period is not only sufficient to cover most assignments
\266\ but is also an appropriate interval for the U.S. government to
ensure that the alien remains eligible as an I nonimmigrant. DHS
acknowledges the suggestion to distinguish between short-term event-
based journalists and bureau correspondence regarding admission periods
but declines to adopt different standards for different types of I visa
holders. The rule does not limit the number of extension requests and
thus EOS requests may be pursued by those I nonimmigrants who want
additional time in the United States for their I visa activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ DHS data, supra note 174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS also appreciates and acknowledges concerns about the impact to
independent journalists, the global reputation of the United States as
a defender of press freedom, the importance of international
journalism, and the importance of diverse viewpoints. DHS remains
committed to supporting transparency and the free flow of information
and does not anticipate the rule to negatively impact these values.
DHS has considered comments regarding freedom of association under
the National Labor Relations Act. The rule does not alter or restrict
the rights of nonimmigrants to associate for lawful purposes. DHS is
aware of the legal precedents cited by commenters and will continue to
ensure that all actions are consistent with Supreme Court decisions and
applicable law.
j. Support for Proposed Rule and Alignment With Statutory Intent
Comments: Several commenters stated that the D/S framework
undermines Congress's intent in enacting the 3- and 10-year bars to
admission found in INA secs. 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and (C)(i)(I), reasoning
that D/S makes it difficult for DHS to determine when unlawful presence
begins, and frustrating the enforcement of these statutory bars.
Another commenter noted that the proposed rule redefines the accrual of
unlawful presence. A commenter wrote that admitted nonimmigrant
students generally do not file paperwork with USCIS and thus only begin
accruing unlawful presence when detected, referencing backlog
statistics of almost 3.8 million cases and extended waits in
immigration courts nationwide. The commenter concluded that Congress
intended a ``bright-line'' system in which unlawful presence starts
when the authorized stay ends, and that D/S does not align with this
intent and expressed support for repealing D/S regulations.
Response: DHS appreciates the support for eliminating D/S and
acknowledges commenter's concern that a D/S framework makes it
difficult for DHS to determine when unlawful presence begins in certain
circumstances. Nonimmigrants admitted for D/S generally do not accrue
unlawful presence as provided under INA 212(a)(9)(B) and (C), 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(B) and (C), unless there is a finding by an immigration
officer that the nonimmigrant violated their status in the course of
adjudicating an immigration benefit, or when an immigration judge
orders the nonimmigrant, excluded, deported, or removed.\267\ Since
nonimmigrant students are currently admitted for D/S, they generally do
not file with USCIS subsequent applications or petitions such as an EOS
and, therefore, immigration officers do not generally have the
opportunity to determine whether the nonimmigrant student has violated
their status. Further, even if DHS has supporting documents
demonstrating a violation of status and issues a Notice to Appear to
the nonimmigrant student, it can take months or years before his or her
case is heard by an immigration judge and a decision is made on whether
there is a violation of status, which at that point unlawful presence
begins to accrue.\268\ With the transition from the D/S framework to a
fixed period, once a period of authorized stay is finished, unlawful
presence begins to accrue similar to other nonimmigrant categories.
Accordingly, the rule places nonimmigrants subject to the rule on equal
footing with other categories of nonimmigrant aliens whose cases are
reviewed for compliance, rather than giving them an unwarranted
advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ See USCIS Memorandum, supra note 72.
\268\ See Executive Office For Immigration Review, Adjudication
Statistics (July 31, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1344791/dl?inline (indicating 3,797,662 pending cases as of the
third quarter in 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Severability
Comments: Commenters expressed concern with the inclusion of a
severability clause. For example, commenters remarked that severability
could result in incoherent or partially adapted provisions, reasoning
that many of the proposed rule's provisions are interconnected. A
commenter stated that the inclusion of a severability clause ``signals
the rule's overreach'' across various sectors such as education,
research, healthcare, culture, and media. The commenter noted that
narrow problems like enhanced SEVIS analytics, risk-based reviews, and
reuse of existing biometrics, could be addressed with targeted fixes,
as opposed to a sweeping overhaul, to avert heavy costs. Commenters
said that fragmentary implementation could cause confusion for
students, schools, and DHS officers, suggesting any future revisions be
republished as a unified package and put out for notice and comment.
Additionally, a commenter said that adoption of severed provisions
could cause compliance issues.
Response: DHS acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the
inclusion of a severability clause in the proposed rule. The purpose of
the severability clause is to ensure that, in the event a specific
provision of the rule is invalidated or otherwise unenforceable due to
legal challenge, the remaining provisions can continue to operate
independently to the extent possible. This approach is consistent
[[Page 45080]]
with standard rulemaking practices and is intended to preserve the
functionality of the rule while minimizing disruption. DHS disagrees
that compliance issues or confusion will result from the inclusion of a
severability clause. In fact, the severability clause protects from
significant changes to the regulation in the event a provision is
rendered inoperable. DHS intends for the provisions of each new
regulatory amendment to function sensibly independent of other
provisions. The provisions finalized in this rule are intended to
enhance program integrity and compliance, consistent with DHS's
statutory authority and practices for other nonimmigrant categories.
Although the provisions collectively will strengthen the overall
integrity of the exchange visitor program and provide clearer
compliance requirements, they each operate independently to serve this
purpose as well. For example, the requirement for nonimmigrant aliens
to file an EOS after the end of an approved course of study is
independent from the prohibition on F-1 students at the graduate level
from changing educational objectives. Similarly, providing F-1 students
30 days to depart is independent from the restriction against any F-1
student who has completed a program at one educational level from
participating in a program at the same or lower educational level. To
protect DHS's goals for this rule, DHS added regulatory text stating
that the provisions be severable so that, if necessary, the regulations
may continue to function even if a provision is rendered inoperable.
Future revisions to the regulations which require notice and comment
rulemaking will be published in the Federal Register.
4. Privacy Concerns
Comment: A commenter indicated that the proposed rule raises
significant privacy and civil liberties concerns. The commenter
explained that frequent re-vetting and more frequent submissions of
personal, academic, medical, and financial data expand the volume of
sensitive information collected and retained by government systems.
Without strict limits on collection, use, retention, and sharing, the
commenter warned about the increase in risks of misuse, data breaches,
and ``mission creep''--normalizing intrusive monitoring tied to
immigration status rather than tailoring oversight to demonstrable
risk.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenter's concerns regarding
privacy and civil liberties. As with most other nonimmigrant visa
categories that require EOS, DHS is committed to protecting the privacy
and civil liberties of individuals whose information is collected and
maintained. All information collected under this rule will be handled
in accordance with applicable federal privacy laws, including the
Privacy Act of 1974, and DHS policies governing the collection, use,
retention, and sharing of personally identifiable information
(PII).\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ See, e.g., ICE, DHS/ICE/PIA--001 Student and Exchange
Visitor Program (SEVP) (last updated Nov. 30, 2023), https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsicepia-001-student-exchange-visitor-information-system-sevis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight mechanisms are in place to prevent misuse and
unauthorized access. DHS implements strict safeguards to limit access
to sensitive data, minimize the volume of information collected to what
is necessary for the stated purpose, and ensure that information is
retained only as long as required by law and mission need. DHS also
conducts regular Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) and System of
Records Notices (SORNs) to evaluate and mitigate risks associated with
data collection and retention.\270\ DHS limits monitoring and vetting
activities to those individuals and circumstances where there is a
legal requirement or need, in compliance with applicable regulations
and statutes, such as the biometrics requirements under this rule. DHS
continually reviews its processes to ensure that oversight is tailored
and proportionate, and that privacy and civil liberties are protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ See ICE, Office of Information Governance and Privacy,
https://www.ice.gov/management-administration/privacy (last visited
Feb. 20, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (E.O. 12866, 13563)
1. Methodology
Comments: Commenters expressed significant concerns about the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) methodology, arguing that DHS
substantially underestimated the proposed rule's economic impact and
failed to adequately disclose true costs. One commenter wrote that the
analysis relied heavily on speculative qualitative assessments rather
than concrete data, potentially rendering the rule non-compliant with
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Multiple commenters stated that the
RIA quantified only a limited portion of costs while excluding major
categories, such as administrative burdens on educational institutions,
opportunity costs from reallocating DHS personnel, and long-term
reputational harm to U.S. higher education.
Response: DHS acknowledges that not all costs of the rule are
quantified in the regulatory impact analysis. According to Circular A-4
guidance on regulatory impact analyses, when a regulation's impact is
difficult to quantify, economists are required to complete the analysis
by describing these impacts qualitatively.\271\ Therefore, for costs of
this rule which DHS is unable to effectively quantify, DHS elects to
describe these impacts qualitatively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ OMB, Circular A-4: Methods for Treating Non-Monetized
Benefits and Costs (Sept. 17, 2003), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS requested comments and data on the quantified burdens in the
NPRM. Based on public comments, DHS's added additional time burdens to
the RIA. For example, DHS included additional advising time burdens
during the transition period. To the extent possible, DHS incorporated
burdens into the quantified cost estimates.
Comments: Multiple commenters highlighted broader economic
consequences, beyond those acknowledged in the analysis, including
reduced foreign student enrollment, lost tuition revenue, decreased
consumer spending, and diminished tax income. The commenters also
highlighted concerns about downstream impacts such as labor market
disruptions, reduced access for underrepresented students, innovation
decline, and damage to U.S. higher education competitiveness. One
commenter stressed the need for an assessment of impacts on the highly
skilled workforce, including in critical sectors such as AI, energy,
life sciences, and healthcare.
Response: DHS acknowledges the economic contribution of foreign
students and exchange visitors through tuition and regional spending,
as well as contributions to research, innovation, and teaching. DHS
anticipates the economic benefits to municipalities, educational
institutions, and firms whose businesses rely on foreign students and
exchange visitors to continue. DHS acknowledges that the rule may
adversely affect U.S. competitiveness in the international market for
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors by imposing an additional
burden on foreign students and exchange visitors who need to file EOS
requests. However, DHS expects the quality of U.S. education systems to
remain high and international demand for U.S. education to continue.
Any reduction in enrollment has the potential to reduce the
economic benefits that foreign students and exchange visitors offer,
and to potentially disrupt labor markets that rely on foreign students
and exchange
[[Page 45081]]
visitor labor. DHS expects the United States to remain a popular,
competitive, and attractive place for foreign students and exchange
visitors to pursue their program of interest. Accordingly, DHS does not
intend for the rule to impact the quality of educational experience
offered in the United States. DHS has decided to discuss this impact
qualitatively due to the speculative nature of the magnitude of the
decrease in enrollment and any associated reduction in revenue.
Additionally, DHS notes that the F, J, and I visa categories are
not intended to address U.S. labor markets for the high skilled
workforce. This rule does not impact the H-1B or O-1 visa categories.
Comments: One commenter stated that DHS significantly
underestimated the number of students who would require extensions
under the proposed rule. The commenter referenced their own
institution's data showing that on average 71 percent of graduating
seniors either apply for OPT or request transfers to graduate programs
and stated that these figures are far higher than DHS's estimate that
only 13 percent of F-1 students would be affected. Commenters also
critiqued incorrect DHS assumptions regarding J-1 exchange visitors,
explaining that program sponsors routinely issue DS-2019s for only a
year at a time based on annual reappointment cycles, rather than for
the maximum period allowed. The commenters stated this practice follows
regulatory requirements that J-1 sponsors only issue DS-2019s for the
length of exchange activity and duration of adequate funding, which
often align with annual appointment cycles.
Another commenter criticized DHS's reliance on outdated data,
noting that the analysis used SEVP data from 2016 to 2018, which they
considered too old to project future impacts accurately.
Response: DHS acknowledges that the NPRM utilized data from 2016
through 2018. The Regulatory Impact Analysis has been updated to
include data from 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024 to provide a
more accurate model of the number of EOS requests. The annualized cost
estimates from the NPRM to the final rule increased from $390.3 to
$443.1 million when discounted at 3 percent, and $392.4 to $448.6
million when discounted at 7 percent.
The regulatory impact analysis shows 1,470,059 F-1 students may be
affected by this rule. This number is a 3-year average from 2022-2024,
and DHS acknowledges that some schools may be more affected than others
by this rule.
DHS recognizes that J-1 program sponsors issue DS-2019s for only a
year at a time for certain programs. DHS will provide guidance to
officers admitting J-1 nonimmigrants to refer to Box 4 on their DS-2019
in order to get the full program length, up to four years, for the
admitted non-immigrant's I-94, which will reduce the need for the
annual re-appointment cycle that the commenter cites. This allows
categories with longer programs (extending beyond 4 years), such as
alien physicians, professors, or research scholars, to only require an
EOS after the initial 4 years, and other categories to only require an
EOS when needed as discussed in this rule. This will limit the number
of EOS requests from J-1 nonimmigrants while still providing the
necessary oversight the rule seeks to provide. This change was applied
to the RIA estimate of the number of EOS requests for J nonimmigrants.
Comments: Many commenters recommended that DHS conduct a
comprehensive impact analysis before finalizing the proposed rule. They
emphasized the need to fully assess operational, economic, opportunity,
and equity implications, stressing that any future rulemaking should
include a robust cost-benefit analysis comparing multiple regulatory
alternatives and involve meaningful consultation with affected economic
sectors.
Response: DHS conducted a regulatory impact analysis to fully
consider the potential impacts of the final rule in accordance with
Circular A-4 best practices.\272\ In this RIA, DHS considered the
impacts of the rule on affected parties, including F, J, and I
nonimmigrants, DSOs and ROs, and government agencies such as DHS and
DoS. DHS also considered a variety of alternatives to the rule, as
explained in the published NPRM, but concluded that eliminating the D/S
framework and switching to fixed time periods for F, J, and I
nonimmigrants was ultimately the most effective method of addressing
intertwined national security, fraud, and overstay concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Costs
a. General Comments on Costs Considered
Comments: Commenters stated that the proposed rule would be costly,
citing DHS's own estimate of annualized costs ranging from $390.3
million to $392.4 million, affecting both U.S. and non-U.S. parties.
Commenters wrote that U.S. parties would face between $86.3 million and
$88.1 million yearly, with the vast majority attributed to DSOs and
AROs. A few commenters pointed out that DSOs would have to undergo
additional training and adaptation to familiarize themselves with the
new regulations, and that this compliance cost is estimated to reach
$93.3 million across the sector in year one, according to NAFSA.\273\
Commenters challenged DHS's cost estimates as substantially
understated, with some offering alternative calculations. One commenter
estimated annual costs between $7.4 billion and $12.4 billion,
including $2.3 billion in direct costs, and up to $10 billion in lost
economic activity from reduced student enrollment. Another commenter
cited projections from an economist and the Institute for Progress
suggesting the elimination of D/S could cost the United States between
$72 billion and $145 billion over 10 years, significantly higher than
DHS's estimate of $3.3 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ Commenters referenced Duration of Status Explainer, see
supra note 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters expressed concerns about the financial impact of the
proposed rule on educational institutions, arguing that DHS's
implementation cost estimates were too low. Community colleges, 2+2
transfer programs, and smaller colleges in rural areas were identified
as particularly vulnerable. Commenters warned English language schools
could see severe impacts, including revenue decreases and potential
closures. One commenter estimated that the loss of students deterred by
the EOS requirement would cost their English language learning program
$1 million annually. Commenters also warned of broader economic
consequences, including reduced U.S. competitiveness and negative
impacts on local economies.
Response: DHS has updated its regulatory impact analysis to use
data from 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024, and finds annualized
costs of $443.1 million to $448.6 million when discounted at 3 and 7
percent respectively. These updated cost figures result from data
updates and updating the EOS cost model for event specific data,
changes in burden estimates for rule familiarization, and new guidance
on the adjudication of for DS-2019 for J visa holders. DHS disagrees
with the larger impacts proposed, as they assume large enrollment
impacts as a result of the rule. It is unknown how many current
students will choose not to continue their enrollment at a U.S.
educational institution. This rule's main regulatory burden to
nonimmigrants is to fill out an EOS request and pay a small fee,
relative to the overall cost of attendance, but the rule will allow
them
[[Page 45082]]
to continue with their educational activities in the country upon
completion of this requirement and continued compliance with the terms
of the nonimmigrant's visa. While some foreign students may choose not
to enroll as a result of this rule, DHS expects that U.S. educational
institutions will continue to attract other students who are not
dissuaded by the requirements of this rule due to the high quality and
opportunities at these institutions. U.S. universities and colleges may
be able to fill any vacancies left by foreign students who choose not
to enroll with other qualified applicants, whether from other countries
or domestically, which could reduce the overall impact on enrollment
numbers. DHS is unable to quantify enrollment impacts due to
uncertainty factors (see Appendix A in the Regulatory Impact Analysis)
as a result of the increase in quantified costs due to this rule.
Comments: A commenter recommended that DHS study the projected
private sector economic impacts and provide additional research on the
alleged security threats posed by overstays. Multiple commenters
recommended that DHS reperform its cost-benefit analysis to reflect the
larger scale impacts that the proposed rule fails to recognize.
Response: In the regulatory impact analysis for this rule, DHS does
consider the larger scale impacts of this rule, including its impacts
on the private sector. DHS understands that the elimination of D/S has
the potential to reduce nonimmigrant student enrollment and
participation of exchange visitor and foreign media representatives due
to additional costs and other burdens associated with extensions of the
admission period. However, DHS does not intend for this rule to cause
substantial reductions in student enrollment, as DHS maintains that
there are a wide range of benefits from pursuing an academic program in
the United States that may outweigh the impacts from the admission for
a fixed period. Additionally, nonimmigrants, if needed, can extend
their stay if they meet the EOS eligibility requirements. This rule
does not prevent nonimmigrants from filing an EOS request. Because DHS
does not expect substantial reductions in student enrollment, DHS does
not expect this rule to have major downstream impacts on the
municipalities, educational institutions, and firms whose businesses
rely on foreign students, foreign media representatives, and exchange
visitors.
DHS acknowledges that not all costs of the rule are quantified in
the regulatory impact analysis and there is uncertainty regarding
enrollment impacts. According to Circular A-4 guidance on regulatory
impact analyses, when a regulation's impact is difficult to quantify,
economists are required to complete the analysis by describing these
impacts qualitatively. Therefore, for costs of this rule which DHS is
unable to effectively quantify, such as the potential burden for DHS
and nonimmigrants associated with government requests for additional
information or in-person interviews, or the potential reduction in
enrollment of nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors and
subsequent revenue effects on sponsoring institutions, DHS elects to
describe these impacts qualitatively and describes uncertainties
regarding enrollment impacts. See the Regulatory Impact Analysis,
``Costs'' and Appendix A of the RIA sections available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
As far as studying the overstays to determine the risks they pose,
the record has been clear for many years. Any nonimmigrant who
overstays any class of visa is unlawfully present in the United States
and presents a risk to national security. Once an F-1 visa holder
completes their program and is no longer tracked by DSOs at SEVP-
certified institutions, DHS no longer has accurate data on their
location or activities through the SEVIS database. The United States
has had several incidents in which individuals overstayed their visa
and went on to commit terrorist acts, including several of the 9/11
attackers and Mohamed Soliman who violently attacked U.S. citizens in
Boulder, Colorado in 2025.\274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ See The 9/11 Commission Report, supra note 18; see also
Spagat, E., The Associated Press, What we Know About the Visa
Obtained by Egyptian Man who Injured a Dozen People in Colorado
(Jun. 4, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/immigration-visas-soliman-colorado-attack-81f44b98365adc01b1ff418a1885a1c6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Costs to Nonimmigrants, Aliens, and Their Support Systems
(1) Costs for EOS Filings
Comments: Multiple commenters stated that the proposed rule would
impose significant costs on foreign students from EOS filings (e.g.,
fees, biometrics). One commenter expressed concern that DHS provided
little supporting data for the EOS filing costs to foreign students and
exchange visitors, specifically individual cost breakdown. Another
commenter stated that the expense of filing an EOS adds to an already
considerable list of fees that foreign students pay to come to the
United States and maintain their status, including the SEVIS I-901 fee
($350), nonimmigrant visa application fee ($185), visa integrity fee
($250), and (if applicable) fees associated with OPT and STEM OPT.
Commenters stated that, under the proposed rule, many foreign
students are likely to incur costs for at least one EOS application,
with many needing to file multiple EOS applications due to changes in
academic level or participation in OPT. One of these commenters
referenced a common educational path, Bachelor's degree, OPT, Master's
degree, OPT, and STEM OPT, which would require four separate EOS
filings with USCIS and an approximate cost of $1,680.
Response: DHS acknowledges that EOS filings will incur costs to
nonimmigrants. Table 16, Applicant Unit Costs for Filing an EOS with
USCIS of the final Regulatory Impact Analysis calculates the various
costs that could be assumed for an EOS request. These costs include
assistance and differences in submission type. These costs would only
be incurred if the nonimmigrant files an EOS request and would not be
concurrent with fees such as the Visa Application Fee.
DHS acknowledges that some nonimmigrants will incur multiple EOS
requests. These costs are not expected to occur in a single instance
and would be dispersed across multiple years according to the
nonimmigrant's program. The Regulatory Impact Analysis does model
nonimmigrants who would apply for multiple EOS requests across the 10-
year timeframe, which make up the estimate for the number of EOS
requests per year.
DHS expects foreign students to consider the cost of extending
their status in the context of the overall cost of their program, which
may include expenses such as tuition, textbooks, room and board, and
discretionary expenses. Because the cost of status extension is small,
relative to the overall cost of attendance, DHS does not expect this
added cost to impose a significant change in burden for foreign
students.
Comments: Commenters stated that the proposed rule fails to account
for the costs associated with foreign students and exchange visitors
obtaining legal representation. They emphasized that DSOs and ROs are
not authorized to provide legal advice, meaning that many foreign
students and exchange visitors would need to hire legal counsel to
ensure proper completion of filings. Commenters provided alternative
cost estimates for legal support when filing an EOS, ranging from $750
to $3,000. One of these commenters argued that the EOS filing costs
could create
[[Page 45083]]
financial barriers to program completion, specifically referencing
doctoral students, who typically earn $30,000 annually.
Response: DHS acknowledges that nonimmigrants may require legal
help in completing the EOS request. This cost is accounted for in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the NPRM as an average cost of $490,
according to the Supporting Statement of Form I-539. As not all
nonimmigrants will require legal support, this cost is only applied to
24.5 percent \275\ of the nonimmigrants expected to file an EOS request
and require additional assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\275\ Based on Supporting Statement for Form I-539 values, 24.5
percent of F-1, J-1, and I applicants (70% paper applicants * 35%
requiring outside assistance = 24.5%) will incur these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: One commenter criticized the cost analysis for the
biometrics appointments required as part of the EOS process. The
commenter specifically noted (1) the use of a ``50 mile round-trip''
without any analysis of the geographic distribution of ASCs in relation
to universities (particularly for rural institutions) and (2) the
assumption of universal car ownership, ignoring students who rely on
public transportation, rideshare services, or who may need to arrange
overnight accommodations due to the distance. These oversights, the
commenter stated, result in a systematic underestimation of actual
costs, which are likely to far exceed DHS's projections. Another
commenter stated that biometrics appointments pose a substantial
challenge for the majority of foreign students, who frequently lack
access to personal transportation.
Response: DHS disagrees that the cost analysis for the biometrics
is underestimated and does not expect this burden to be a significant
deterrent to most foreign students. DHS acknowledges that nonimmigrants
will incur different travel costs based on location and availability of
transportation; they were included in the regulatory impact analysis of
the NPRM. The usage of 50 miles is an average distance and is not the
same experience for all nonimmigrants. Some will incur small costs due
to proximity and low-cost transportation, and others will incur higher
costs. This figure is meant to provide an average per nonimmigrant but
will not be the specific cost for all nonimmigrants.
(2) Obtaining an EOS at a POE
Comments: One commenter remarked that, given the financial burden
and uncertainty associated with international travel, exiting and
reentering the United States at a POE would not be a viable alternative
to filing Form I-539 with USCIS for extending status. The commenter
also stated that F-1 and J-1 visa holders, particularly individuals
holding single-entry visas, may need to obtain a new visa stamp to
travel abroad and reenter the country to extend their period of
admission. This may force individuals to remain outside the United
States for an extended period of time and impose significant personal
cost and risk.
Response: DHS acknowledges that travelling outside of the United
States and re-entering may not be the preferred option for all impacted
visa holders. The exact proportion of eligible nonimmigrants who will
choose to re-enter through a POE is unknown, but in the regulatory
impact analysis for the NPRM and Final Rule, DHS assumes that, while
requesting an EOS at a POE is an option, many nonimmigrants wishing to
remain in the country will file an EOS and remain in country instead of
incurring costs due to travel and reentry. The regulatory impact
analysis also assesses how the impacts would change if nonimmigrants
sought extensions while traveling through a POE instead of filing the
I-539 or I-539A form.
(3) Unquantifiable and Intangible Costs
Comments: One commenter stated that DHS does not acknowledge the
unquantifiable and intangible costs associated with the uncertainty of
applying for a new period of admission. These include (1) the lack of
published adjudication data for Form I-539 to inform the likelihood of
EOS denial under the proposed rule, (2) current processing time issues
at the USCIS California Service Center, which reports an average of 4.5
months for changes to F-1 or J-1 status and 3.5 months for extensions,
and (3) the inability of applicants to depart the United States after
filing an EOS application for fear of abandoning the application and
losing their money.
Response: DHS acknowledges that a denial of EOS may cause an
interruption in a student's studies. However, any such denial would be
warranted due to an applicant's lack of eligibility for an EOS (i.e.,
the student is placed on academic probation or suspension, repeatedly
fails classes, failed to maintain their nonimmigrant status, or has a
criminal history).
DHS acknowledges backlogs in the processing of EOS applications
have occurred due to various factors not related to this rulemaking.
DHS believes that factors contributing to this backlog will not be
present when more significant influx of EOS applications resulting from
this final rule are anticipated to be filed with USCIS. USCIS, as a fee
funded agency, may set fees to support the additional workload
associated with adjudication of cases subject to section 212(a)(4) of
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). USCIS conducts comprehensive fee studies
on a biennial basis to assess whether its fee schedule adequately
accounts for the full cost of naturalization and adjudication services.
This assessment necessarily takes into account the projected volume of
filings and the level of effort necessary to adjudicate various
immigration benefit requests.\276\ USCIS will allocate appropriate
levels of resources to ensure the adjudication of EOS continues in a
timely fashion. Due to the expected growth of fees paid for the I-539
form, USCIS will have more resources to allocate to meet the demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ USCIS published a rule to change its fee schedule. See
USCIS Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit
Request Requirements, 85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020), corrected by USCIS
Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit
Request Requirements, 85 FR 49941 (Aug. 17, 2020) (Fee Rule). The
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has
preliminarily enjoined DHS from implementing or enforcing any part
of the Fee Rule. Immigration Legal Resource Center et al., v. Wolf,
et al., Case No. 20-cv-05883-JSW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2020). While
the Fee Rule is enjoined, USCIS will continue to accept USCIS forms
with the current editions and current fees and use the regulations
and guidance currently in place to adjudicate applications and
petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Students will be aware of their allowed length of stay as well as
the end date for their length of stay. Students who do not wish to
leave the country while filing for an EOS are able to plan their travel
ahead of time based on that information.
c. Costs to the Government
(1) Costs to USCIS
Comments: Multiple commenters emphasized that the Federal
Government would need substantial resources to manage the increased
volume of visa renewal and immigration extension applications. One
commenter stated that the proposed rule does not clearly indicate
whether application fees or other revenue sources would be sufficient
to offset these additional costs.
Response: DHS does not expect an unreasonable burden to USCIS, the
agency responsible for Form I-539, from the adjudication of EOS
requests. USCIS is a fee-funded agency and established fees for the EOS
applications to support the workload associated with adjudication of
cases. USCIS conducts comprehensive fee studies on a biennial
[[Page 45084]]
basis to assess whether its fee schedule adequately accounts for the
agency's full costs. Additionally, the regulatory impact analysis for
this rule qualitatively assesses how USCIS requests for additional
information or in-person interviews may impose additional costs on
USCIS.
Comments: Multiple commenters stated that DHS failed to quantify
the economic and operational impact of the proposed rule on USCIS,
despite the agency potentially needing to process hundreds of thousands
of additional EOS applications. Without evidence, these comments stated
that USCIS currently lacks the necessary systems, staffing, training,
information technology (IT) infrastructure, and integration
capabilities to manage such an increase in application volume
efficiently. One commenter highlighted that USCIS is already facing
significant resource constraints and processing delays, particularly
after the recent loss of experienced personnel due to government
downsizing and added that further workload increases without adequate
resources would likely strain the agency and lead to longer processing
times. Another commenter recommended that DHS fully assess the
potential impact of the proposed rule on application processing times
across all Federal agencies, particularly those responsible for
employment-based applications.
Response: DHS agrees with commenters that there will be an increase
in fee-paying volumes of EOS applications received by USCIS following
the effective date of the final rule as those nonimmigrants who are
required to file EOS begin to do so and acknowledges this in the NPRM.
However, DHS notes that the most significant increase in the volume of
EOS applications will not materialize until 4 years after the effective
date of this rule. This will allow time for DHS to shift resources as
needed and as appropriate to ensure that the larger increased volumes
are integrated into existing workflows. Several commenters noted and
DHS has acknowledged backlogs in the processing of EOS applications.
DHS believes that, given that 80 percent of Form I-539 adjudications
for F, M, and J aliens are completed in three months,\277\ factors
contributing to this backlog will not be present when the EOS
applications resulting from this final rule are anticipated to be filed
with USCIS. The fees collected with the increase in applications will
result in additional resources for USCIS to use to mitigate the impact
on the processing queue. The funds can be used to allocate appropriate
resources to ensure adjudication of the I-539 in a timely manner. This
will lessen the impact on processing times for applications with USCIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ DHS, USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/ (last accessed Feb. 23, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS acknowledges that not all costs of the rule are quantified in
the regulatory impact analysis. According to Circular A-4 guidance on
regulatory impact analyses, when a regulation's impact is difficult to
quantify, economists are required to complete the analysis by
describing these impacts qualitatively. Therefore, for costs of this
rule which DHS is unable to effectively quantify, DHS elects to
describe these impacts qualitatively. These impacts include system
upgrades, training and adaptation for the federal government, among
others. DHS did quantify the costs of filing EOS requests on the
nonimmigrant population, the educational institutions and sponsors
assisting the nonimmigrants, and overall familiarization and adaptation
costs. These were quantified using available data regarding population
sizes, burden estimates, and wage rates.
(2) Costs to CBP
Comments: A commenter states that while DHS acknowledges that CBP
will require new training, updated procedures and system upgrades, it
fails to provide a cost estimate for these changes. Another commenter
stated that DHS had not adequately assessed the significant impacts on
CBP, including (1) training for CBP officers on new systems and
procedures and (2) necessary upgrades to systems and procedures. A
commenter stated that CBP training expenses for new admission
procedures are standard government costs that can be calculated using
established per-employee methodologies.
Response: DHS acknowledges that this rule will require efforts to
update systems and train officers. However, these system updates will
not incur additional costs, as the updates for SEVIS are part of
regular software updates and incorporated within the budget allocations
into current financial and resource allocations for SEVIS operations
and maintenance. Furthermore, ADIS does not require any additional
costs for new software updates as a direct result of the D/S rule.
Training costs are similarly expected and incorporated within the
overall training budget allocations and incur no additional cost to the
U.S. taxpayer. The training for compliance with the rule will be part
of regular training and training budgets and cannot be separated as a
distinct cost.
(3) Costs to DoS
Comments: Multiple commenters stated that DHS does not account for
additional costs or budgets. These commenters remarked that the
proposed rule would likely increase DoS responsibilities, considering
the newly implemented screening and vetting procedures for F and J
nonimmigrants, which now require in-person interviews for nearly all
nonimmigrant visa renewal applicants. One commenter highlighted that
changes to the interview waiver policy could result in an increase in
visa interview volume. One other commenter recommended DHS consider the
impact that the proposed rule would have on consular operations
worldwide.
Response: DHS disagrees that this rule imposes additional burden on
DoS which are not accounted for in the regulatory impact analysis. This
rule does not increase DoS responsibilities or require changes to
vetting procedures. Changes to screening and vetting procedures
required by other regulatory or policy changes are not a burden of this
rule and so are not assessed in the RIA.
(4) Costs to Other Federal and State Agencies
Comments: One commenter stated that the Social Security
Administration and the Internal Revenue Service use Form I-94 for
business purposes and would require system updates and additional
employee training as a result of the proposed rule. This commenter also
stated that State-level processes that rely on Federal systems, such as
driver's license and state ID issuances, were not considered in the
cost or impact of the rulemaking.
Response: DHS acknowledges that this rule will change the filing
process of the I-94 at a POE for nonimmigrants affected by this rule.
However, the I-94 form will not change, as the end date will be
replaced with a hard date, no longer than 4 years after entry, instead
of the D/S indicator. Agencies who use the I-94, such as the Social
Security Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Internal
Revenue Service, should receive notification of these changes. Agencies
will be aware so that there is no confusion and understand that D/S is
no longer used for this population of nonimmigrants.
DHS recognizes various state laws related to driver's licenses for
aliens but does not have authority to adjust these state laws. DHS
acknowledges that
[[Page 45085]]
indirect impacts, such as more frequent license renewals, could occur
as a result of how states utilize the I-94 form. However, many other
visa types utilize fixed duration on the I-94 form, so this adjustment
should not be significant.
d. Costs to Schools, Programs, Program Sponsors, and Small Entities
(1) Increased Costs for Rule Familiarization and Adaptation
Comments: Multiple commenters stated that the DHS cost estimate for
DSO/RO rule familiarization and adaptation in the first year after the
rule takes effect is significantly understated. Using DHS's 67-hour
estimate, one commenter estimated rule familiarization and adaptation
costs for their institution of $180,000. Commenters stated that the 67
hours of training would be the minimum, as DSOs and ROs would need to
assume additional duties, such as outreach work for students, exchange
visitors, and staff regarding the changes, updates to case management
and batch processing systems, additional counseling, updates to all
relevant guidance and processes, and other duties which could require
near constant attention for 1 to 2 years. Commenters noted that there
would be additional burden to DSOs who must advise their current F-1
students of the new rule. Another commenter stated that the rule's
restrictions, if implemented, would require an overhaul of all
materials in English, French, Spanish and Mandarin, adding
administrative burden while decreasing income. Another commenter stated
that the proposed rule does not consider the new and ongoing training
that institutions will have to develop and implement for multiple
academic departments and administrative entities involved in supporting
foreign students. Commenters stated they had already spent over 50
hours analyzing the information in the proposal, running out of time,
before comments were due.
Response: In response to comments providing alternative estimates
for DSO/RO labor burden from the rulemaking, DHS has revised the rule
familiarization and adaptation burden estimate to the median value the
public comments provided of 135 hours--this includes the time required
to create and modify training materials. Additionally, DHS has also
added in a 1 hour per current F nonimmigrant advising burden to account
for the first year of costs estimated, to provide an accurate
accounting of the burden to DSOs when transitioning from D/S to a fixed
length of stay. This increase is reflected in the updated cost numbers,
and includes any additional training or materials created due to this
rule. See the Regulatory Impact Analysis, ``Rule Familiarization and
Adaptation: F and J Sponsors'', available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Comments: One commenter highlighted concerns for labor
organizations representing visa holders, writing that they would face
increased costs to educate members about the changes, organize
trainings, produce materials, and assist with extension processes.
Response: DHS recognizes that some organizations such as labor
organizations may choose to update materials as a result of this rule.
However, this rule does not obligate those changes. Should a labor
organization choose to offer assistance with EOS applications for
foreign students, DHS cannot account for that cost or time burden in
the RIA since it is not required by the rule.
(2) Annual Administrative Burden for Sponsors
Comments: Commenters expressed concern about the administrative
burden the proposed rule would impose on DSOs, particularly regarding
the increased volume of EOS applications they would be required to
process. One commenter stated that the time burden estimated in the RIA
for DSOs was significantly underestimated, particularly considering
that students typically file EOS applications simultaneously each year
due to the academic calendar and standardized I-20 end dates. Multiple
commenters estimated their institutions' EOS processing costs under the
rule using DHS's cost and time projections. This estimate amounted to
hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs and additional full-time
equivalent (FTE) staff needs to meet the burden. Other commenters
estimated overall annual costs resulting from the rule, ranging from
$767,000 to $1.3 million.
Response: DHS acknowledges that the new process for an EOS may
increase the burden for DSOs and acknowledges that there may be
seasonal variation in the number of EOS requests DSOs will need to
process. However, similar to employment reporting, the DSO is only
required to input accurate information in SEVIS and provide the updated
I-20 to the foreign student. Beyond that, it is the foreign student's
responsibility to apply for the extension with an updated I-20 to USCIS
using the I-539 form. Based on best professional judgment, SEVP
continues to estimate that DSOs/ROs would require an average of 3 hours
per EOS request for (1) reviewing the foreign student's or exchange
visitor's EOS request form (1 hour), (2) updating the SEVIS record and
tracking EOS requests (1 hour), and (3) advising the foreign student or
exchange visitor about the extension process and the requirements to
file an EOS with USCIS (1 hour). Should a DSO offer additional
assistance with EOS applications for their foreign students as part of
their offered services, DHS cannot account for that cost or time burden
in the RIA since it is not required by the rule.
(3) Impacts on University Staffing
Comments: Commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would
require institutions to hire additional staff to manage the increased
administrative workload. One commenter estimated that first-year costs
for staffing, training, and systems development would total
approximately $250,000 for their university. Another commenter
projected the need to hire at least two FTEs, at a minimum cost of
$80,000, to meet the demands of the proposed reporting requirements. A
commenter specifically remarked that the rule would require Oklahoma
State University to hire four additional full-time immigration
compliance staff and implement new tracking systems costing
approximately $500,000 initially, based on their preliminary analysis.
Another commenter stated that DHS failed to account for impacts of the
proposed rule on university staff beyond the foreign student office.
This commenter further stated that these impacts include rule
familiarization, training, and procedure updates for (1) payroll staff
needing to perform I-9 reverification more frequently, (2) staff
charged with verifying legal presence, (3) academic advisors, who may
be asked to write support letters for extensions, and (4) hiring
departments and supervisors needing to revise recruitment, hiring, and
retention policies.
Response: SEVP-certified schools are not required to maintain
specific staff numbers other than one PDSO. Although DHS anticipates
that most schools authorized to sponsor F students and J exchange
visitors will be able to accommodate the additional DSO/RO labor burden
with existing staff, DHS recognizes that some may elect to hire more
DSOs and ROs to meet the requirements of the rulemaking. DHS expects
that hiring costs would vary depending on number of F students and J
exchange visitors at each institution, size of the institution, and
number of existing staff. DHS anticipates that costs from hiring and
paying additional staff would represent
[[Page 45086]]
a small portion of annual revenue for the great majority of sponsors.
In its regulatory impact analysis, DHS recognizes that beyond DSOs,
additional university departments may also incur labor burden from the
rulemaking, such as personnel offices and planning committees, among
others. DSOs and ROs already coordinate with other departments when
completing regular SEVIS updates, and DHS anticipates that these
updates would provide the information needed for most EOS requests.
(4) Human Resources (HR) and Hiring Processes
Comments: One commenter stated that because F-1 students and J-1
exchange visitors can be legally authorized to work at many public and
private sector employers across the United States, DHS had not
adequately assessed the significant, negative impacts that HR
professionals at employers are likely to experience if the proposed
rule is implemented. The commenter further stated that HR staff would
need to determine the employment eligibility end date for each F-1 and/
or J-1 employee and develop processes to track their EOS application,
the status of their EOS application with USCIS, track the 240-day
extension of work authorization while the application is pending, and
obtain new documentation each time an extension is approved or denied
by USCIS.
Response: DHS disagrees that the final rule will significantly
burden employers. In its regulatory impact analysis, DHS accounted for
1.5 hours of HR labor burden per EOS request for time required by HR
staff to track form updates related to each EOS request and avoid
inadvertent unauthorized employment due to form discrepancies with the
Form I-9. Nothing in the final rule requires employers to prepare
additional documentation; the rule instead requires F-1 students who
wish to complete OPT to apply for EOS if the OPT will occur after the
expiration of the status. DHS also does not expect that the final rule
will commonly result in documents with divergent and confusing
expiration dates.
(5) IT System Costs and Concerns
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concern about the financial
burden that updating IT systems to meet the requirements of the
proposed rule may place on educational institutions. One commenter
stated that the time and resource burden of the changes would be
significant and permanent, as would the addition of information
technology solutions to track students' academic progress, flagging any
changes that impact students' proposed degree timelines. Another
commenter stated that it was analytically indefensible to use
``uncertainty of the scope and scale of the system upgrades needed as a
result of this proposed rule'' to avoid monetizing batch processing
upgrade costs for institutions as a result of the rule. Another
commenter stated that employment and payroll systems will need to be
updated to incorporate the Form I-94 end date as an additional data
point to determine employment eligibility and noted that any changes to
the employment and payroll system, within a university system, must be
made at the system level and requires at least 6 months advance notice
before changes can be implemented.
In addition, another commenter stated that the rule would require
extensive software updates, enhanced data collection, and the
development of new business processes, which would be further
complicated by unreliable data transfer systems between government
agencies regarding the fixed period of stay.
Response: DHS acknowledges the concerns associated with schools
updating their internal IT systems to meet the requirements of the rule
and recognizes in the RIA that the rule could lead to system upgrades
by schools and program sponsors that currently use batch processing to
interface with SEVIS.
However, the costs associated with such updates vary based on the
type of updates needed by each school and it is difficult for DHS to
quantify specific costs. No specific costs were provided that allowed
for a meaningful estimate to be utilized in the analysis. These costs
are discussed in a qualitative manner in lieu of a quantified estimate.
SEVP-certified schools are not required to utilize batch processing,
i.e., the use of a third-party software or database, to identify and
push changes from foreign student records in a school's official
academic database to SEVIS. Because of these heterogeneities, DHS was
unable to model any monetized impact to institutions in a reliable
manner. According to Circular A-4 guidance on regulatory impact
analyses, when a regulation's impact is difficult to quantify,
economists are required to complete the analysis by describing these
impacts qualitatively. Therefore, DHS elects to describe these impacts
qualitatively in the RIA.
Lastly, DHS disagrees that data transfers systems between
government agencies regarding the fixed period of stay will be
unreliable, as there has been coordination between agencies on
implementation. Additionally, many other visas utilize fixed periods of
stay and are able to coordinate across government agencies. Since many
visas utilize fixed periods, DHS expects that systems for employment
should be able to handle the addition of an end date for alien workers
in the country on a visa.
(6) Potential Decline in Enrollment
Commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would lead to a
significant decline in foreign student enrollment, contrary to DHS's
assertion that it would have only a ``marginal impact.'' One commenter
estimated that programs exceeding 4 years at their institution are at
risk of losing 61 percent of their enrolled foreign student population.
One commenter cited a recent analysis published by NAFSA: Association
of International Educators showing that visa bans and disruptions in
visa interviews and processing were already predicted to cause a
potential 30 to 40-percent decline in new foreign student enrollment,
contributing to a 15-percent overall drop in fall enrollment.\278\
Another commenter cited surveys conducted by the Institute for Progress
and NAFSA that found: (1) 49-percent of respondents, who were foreign
students studying in the United States, said they would not have
enrolled had D/S been replaced with a fixed period of admission; and
(2) 16 percent fewer prospective students said they were likely to
enroll in U.S. programs if D/S were replaced with a fixed period of
admission (57 percent) compared to the current rules (67 percent).\279\
A commenter stated that 54 percent of current students and 29 percent
of prospective students, reported they would not come to the United
States for a degree without access to OPT.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ The commenter referenced https://www.nafsa.org/about/about-nafsa/us-economy-could-suffer-7-billion-loss-precipitous-drop-international-students.
\279\ The commenter referenced Institute for Progress and NAFSA,
Surveys on International Talent Pipelines (Sept. 15, 2025), https://ifp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-Surveys-on-International-Talent-Pipelines-1.pdf.
\280\ The commenter referenced the 2025 Surveys on International
Talent Pipelines, supra note 279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS acknowledges that the rule may have an impact on U.S.
competitiveness in attracting foreign students and exchange visitors.
Any reduction in enrollment could potentially diminish the economic
benefits that foreign students and exchange visitors contribute to the
U.S. economy. DHS has chosen to discuss these impacts qualitatively, as
the exact magnitude of any enrollment decline and its downstream
economic effects
[[Page 45087]]
remain uncertain and speculative. DHS also discusses uncertainty
regarding enrollment impacts in Appendix A of the RIA.
DHS acknowledges the analysis from NAFSA showing how disruptions in
visa interviews and processing could contribute to a fall in student
enrollment. Any visa interview or processing disruptions that occurred
prior to the announcement of this rule are likely to be driven by
factors other than this rule. Further, this rule is unlikely to impact
the student visa interview or processing processes. Therefore, DHS does
not intend for the rule to cause significant shift in student
enrollment due to these effects.
DHS acknowledges the commenter's report that survey results from
NAFSA indicated that 49 percent of respondents said they would not have
enrolled in the first place had D/S been replaced with a fixed period
of admission. However, DHS notes that survey responses often reflect
hypothetical preferences rather than actual behavior, and such results
may overstate the likelihood of enrollment declines. In practice,
students may weigh other factors, such as the quality of U.S.
educational institutions and career opportunities, more heavily when
making enrollment decisions.
DHS expects foreign students to consider the cost of extending
their status in the context of the overall cost of their program, which
may include expenses such as tuition, textbooks, room and board, and
discretionary expenses. Because the cost of status extension is small,
relative to the overall cost of attendance, DHS does not expect
potential reduction in enrollment due to this added cost to be
significant.
Additionally, while some nonimmigrant students may choose not to
enroll as a result of this rule, DHS expects that U.S. educational
institutions will continue to attract other students who are not
dissuaded by the requirements of this rule. U.S. universities and
colleges may be able to fill any vacancies left by nonimmigrant
students who choose not to enroll with other qualified applicants,
which could reduce the overall impact on enrollment numbers.
Comments: Another commenter questioned why the analysis of the 2020
Rule indicated a stronger potential effect on international enrollment
than the current proposed rule and stated that without a clear
justification for the change, experts in the field are not reassured
that the proposed change will not impact their job security.\281\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ See 85 FR 60526 (Sept. 25, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The effects of the D/S rule differ from the impacts
calculated in the 2020 regulatory impact analysis due to changes in
underlying student enrollment patterns since 2020 and changes in the
proposed rule, such as replacing the 2-year/4-year maximum fixed
admission period with a 4-year maximum fixed admission period. DHS has
updated the RIA for the final rule and estimates annualized costs of
$443.1 million and $448.6 million, when discounted at 3 and 7 percent
respectively.
e. Costs to the U.S. Economy, Industries, Taxpayers
(1) Economic Contributions of Foreign Students
Comments: Many commenters emphasized the significant economic
contributions that foreign students and exchange visitors make to the
U.S. economy, with multiple commenters citing data from NAFSA showing
that foreign students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy
during the 2023-24 academic year and supported over 378,000 jobs across
various economic sectors. Another commenter stated that the estimated
foregone economic activity resulting from reduced international talent
retention is $12.8 billion. The commenters remarked that, for every
three foreign students enrolled in the United States, one U.S. job is
created or supported through spending in higher education,
accommodation, dining, retail, transportation, telecommunications, and
health insurance.\282\ Another commenter stated that, according to data
from the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis,
education related travel exports ranked seventh among service exports
in 2024.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ The commenters referenced NAFSA, The United States of
America: Benefits from International Students https://www.nafsa.org/sites/default/files/media/document/EconValue2024.pdf and NAFSA,
International Students Contribute Record Breaking Level Spending and
378,000 Jobs, https://www.nafsa.org/about/about-nafsa/international-students-contribute-record-breaking-level-spending-and-378000-jobs.
\283\ The commenter referenced United States Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Education Service Exports,
https://www.trade.gov/education-service-exports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters stated that policies that discourage foreign students
from studying or conducting research in the United States would have
significant negative economic consequences. One commenter stated that
the immediate economic losses projected by DHS paled when compared with
possible future losses since foreign students drive innovation, advance
America's global competitiveness, and create research and academic
opportunities in local colleges and universities that would benefit the
country for generations. Multiple commenters emphasized the vital role
of foreign students in American innovation. One commenter stated that,
since 2000, 36 percent of U.S. Nobel Prize winners have been
immigrants, many arriving initially as students; 40 to 47 percent of
Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children; and
44 to 55 percent of billion-dollar startup companies have at least one
immigrant founder. Some commenters stated that foreign students, and
graduates, founded 55-64 percent of America's ``unicorn'' companies
(valued at $1 billion or more), creating millions of jobs and trillions
in economic value in critical fields, such as AI, in the United States,
ahead of other nations. One commenter mentioned that international
graduates who remain in the United States become high-earning taxpayers
who offset administrative costs, and young international workers help
support America's aging population through Social Security and Medicare
contributions.
Commenters referenced their own analysis using over 20 years of
detailed administrative data from USCIS, SEVIS, and the U.S.
Census.\284\ They stated they conservatively assumed a 10-percent
decline in new F-1 enrollments in degree granting programs due to the
elimination of D/S and determined that this reduction would lead to a
1.9-percent decrease in the total supply of high-skill STEM workers in
the United States. This would be a 0.09 percentage-point decline in
their share of the labor force, and a 0.024 to 0.048 percentage-point
reduction in annual Total Factor Productivity growth. The commenters
stated that, over a 10-year period, this lost productivity growth would
cause GDP to be 0.239 to 0.478 percent smaller than it otherwise would
have been, equivalent to $72 to $145 billion in today's economy.
Another commenter cited this study explaining it found that expected
reductions in STEM focused foreign students would, in turn, reduce
annual productivity growth in the U.S. economy by 3 to 6 percent,
cumulating to a loss of $220 to $439 billion per year after 10 years
and this would be the likely end result after the combined effect of
eliminating D/S admissions,
[[Page 45088]]
restricting OPT, and reducing access to H-1B status. The commenter
reported this estimate is 22 times greater than DHS's cost estimate of
$3.3 billion in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ The commenters referenced Clemens, M., Neufeld, J., and
Nice, A., Brain Freeze: How International Student Exclusion will
Shape the STEM Workforce and Economic Growth in the United States
(Sept. 28, 2025), attaching the report to their comment and advising
it was forthcoming by the Institute for Progress and IZA Institute
of Labor Economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters provided specific examples and statistics related to
state level economic contributions of foreign students. A commenter
stated that preliminary projections by NAFSA and JB International
revealed that recent actions, such as visa bans and disruptions in visa
interviews and processing, had already had a calamitous effect on many
U.S. local economies. Commenters cited a Fall 2025 NAFSA report and
stated that an analysis of SEVIS and DoS data predicted a potential 40-
percent decline in new foreign student enrollment, contributing to a
15-percent drop in overall enrollment that fall, which would deprive
local economies of an estimated $7 billion in spending and more than
60,000 jobs.\285\ One commenter suggested the cost could be between $50
and $200 million to local economies in lost tax revenue. Another
commenter cited the same analysis and remarked that this dramatic
decline is already taking place without the enactment of the proposed
rule, and the proposal would only increase the losses further. One
commenter shared that their institution was expecting a 61-percent
decline in foreign student enrollment and questioned what the impact
would be on the U.S. economy if only one school was experiencing such a
significant decline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ Commenters referenced https://www.nafsa.org/sites/default/files/media/document/EconValue2024.pdf and https://www.nafsa.org/fall-2025-international-student-enrollment-outlook-and-economicimpact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS acknowledges the economic contribution of
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors through tuition and
regional spending, as well as contributions to research, innovation,
and teaching. DHS anticipates the economic benefits to municipalities,
educational institutions, and firms whose businesses rely on
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors to continue, as this rule
will not end those activities. DHS acknowledges that the rule may
adversely affect U.S. competitiveness in the international market for
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors, however DHS does not
intend for the rule to cause significant impacts on enrollment. Any
reduction in enrollment has the potential to reduce the economic
benefits that nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors offer.
However, DHS expects the United States to remain a popular,
competitive, and attractive place for nonimmigrant students and
exchange visitors to pursue their program of interest. Enrollment
decisions are driven by a wide variety of factors beyond EOS costs,
including perceived quality of education, total cost of education, and
job opportunities offered by the education. DHS does not intend for the
rule to impact the quality of educational experience or availability of
job opportunities offered in the United States and expects that the
extensions of stay required by this rule will be a relatively minor
burden for students and exchange visitors in the context of the total
costs of living and studying in the United States. For these reasons,
DHS expects that the United States will remain a desirable destination
for many nonimmigrant students. Due to the speculative nature of the
magnitude of the decrease in enrollment and any downstream economic
impacts that may result from this rule, DHS discusses this impact
qualitatively.
DHS disagrees with the assumption made in the Clemens analysis that
a 10 percent decline in new F-1 enrollments is a conservative estimate.
This assumption is based on survey results from NAFSA, which indicated
that ``49 [percent] of respondents said they would not have enrolled in
the first place had D/Ss been replaced with a fixed period of
admission.'' \286\ DHS notes that survey responses often reflect
hypothetical preferences rather than actual behavior, and such results
may overstate the likelihood of enrollment declines. In practice,
students may weigh other factors, such as the quality of U.S.
educational institutions and career opportunities, more heavily when
making enrollment decisions. It remains uncertain as to how many
students will choose not to enroll due to this rule, DHS discusses the
uncertainty with enrollment impacts in the Final Regulatory Impact and
Flexibility Act Analysis, Appendix A. DHS believes that this rule will
not be a major deterrent, as the main regulatory burden to file an EOS
request in order to remain in the country may not be costly enough to
dissuade enrolling. While some students may perceive risk in the new
requirement, DHS assumed DSO and RSOs will provide guidance to students
to facilitate EOS submission in addition to compliance with other new
requirements. DHS acknowledges the perceived risk impacts but
anticipates uncertainty may decline as students and DSOs/RSOs become
more familiar with the EOS process. The EOS cost is not seen as
significant for those who desire the quality of U.S. educational
institutions and the opportunities afforded to them. Therefore, if
there are minimal enrollment impacts, we do not expect the downstream
effects on employment and GDP to materialize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ See Surveys on International Talent Pipelines, supra note
279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS notes a goal of this rule is to effectively enforce compliance
with statutory inadmissibility grounds related to unlawful presence and
to mitigate the risks found in the D/S framework, thereby preventing
fraud and abuse, enhancing national security, and ensuring program
integrity. While some nonimmigrant students may choose not to enroll as
a result of this rule, DHS expects that U.S. educational institutions
may attract other students who are not dissuaded by the requirements of
this rule. U.S. universities and colleges may be able to fill vacancies
left by nonimmigrant students who choose not to enroll with other
qualified applicants, which could reduce the overall impact on
enrollment numbers such that the net impact is difficult to estimate.
DHS maintains that nonimmigrant students will continue to pursue
educational opportunities in the STEM fields. The students who replace
the vacancies at educational institutions would be able to fill
employment vacancies that would otherwise have been occupied by
nonimmigrants deterred by the rule. DHS expects this replacement effect
to reduce the impact of the rule on employment sectors that utilize
nonimmigrant students, such as STEM fields, and thus reduce the impact
on overall GDP.
Finally, DHS emphasizes that this rule does not address practical
training programs, such as OPT or H-1B visa status, which are governed
by separate regulations.
(2) Impacts on Specific Industries and Sectors
Comments: One commenter noted the challenges facing America's high-
skill workforce and the resulting impact, highlighting the growing
technology corridors that depend on international talent pipelines to
compete globally. The commenter continued referencing smaller
metropolitan areas (e.g., Rochester, New York, or Madison, Wisconsin)
that have built innovation focused economies around universities that
attract significant foreign student populations. Citing the Global
Innovation Index, the commenter remarked that 23 U.S. clusters rank
among the world's top 100 science and technology clusters and stated
that they all rely heavily on foreign students to maintain their
competitive edge. Another commenter stated that severely
[[Page 45089]]
curtailing the number of international scholars and students in STEM
fields would create disastrous disruptions to research institutions and
biomedical innovation. The commenter also stated that the proposed rule
would create greater uncertainty for international scholars considering
where to study, leading to a limited talent pool within the U.S.
biomedical research workforce. This talent pool has contributed,
significantly, to the United States leading the world in biomedical
innovation. Another commenter stated that the economic impacts would be
particularly acute to industries like the automotive and mobility
sectors, manufacturing, and higher education, some of the most
significant employers in the Michigan economy. One commenter cited a
report indicating that the United States faces a significant skills
deficit in AI and ``heavily relies on foreign-born talent,'' with
foreign students constituting more than 50 percent of computer
scientists with graduate degrees employed in the country today and
nearly 70 percent of currently enrolled computer science graduate
students. The commenter also stated that, among U.S.-trained Ph.D.
Graduates in AI-related fields, around 80 percent have remained in the
country. Similarly, another commenter noted that over 70 percent of
full-time graduate students in computer science and electrical
engineering at U.S. universities are foreign students. Another
commenter claimed that the rule would cause a 2-to-4-percentage-point
contraction in entry-level talent pools for tech and engineering and
setbacks in critical research for defense and emergency preparedness.
Response: DHS acknowledges nonimmigrant students and scholars have
made contributions to industries like the automotive and mobility
sectors, manufacturing, higher education, and STEM fields. DHS does not
intend for the rule to cause a significant decline in nonimmigrant
student enrollment because the high-quality education offered at U.S.
institutions will continue to attract talented nonimmigrant students
and researchers. DHS thus does not anticipate a significant reduction
in research capabilities, technological advancement, or industrial
benefits associated with nonimmigrant students.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern about the impact of the
proposed rule on the U.S. healthcare system, particularly regarding J-1
physicians, since the use of annual contracts would effectively require
J-1 clinical residents and fellows to file extensions every year with
USCIS. This would likely result in consequential delays in their
ability to timely start their training programs on June 1, each year.
One commenter projected a 5-to-10-percent reduction in J-1 physicians
in medical deserts. The commenter stated that this would cause
catastrophic harm, not only on U.S. training programs but on the
overall provision of health in the United States, given the critical
role J-1 physicians play in providing healthcare, and particularly in
federally designated underserved communities. The commenter argued that
at a time when the United States was expecting a shortage of 187,130
physicians by 2037, the United States simply could not afford to lose
U.S. trained physicians. Another commenter highlighted the potential
negative impact on medical training programs themselves, noting that
the added administrative burdens, uncertainty around EOS approvals for
resident physicians, and increased costs would deter many qualified
individuals from filling available training positions in the United
States.
Response: DHS acknowledges that nonimmigrant students who received
medical training at U.S. institutions have filled important roles
providing medical care in the United States, including in underserved,
rural areas. DHS expects that nonimmigrant students will continue to
receive medical training in the United States and will continue to
serve in these critical roles due to the lack of such training
opportunities in their home countries.
Officers admitting J-1 nonimmigrants will be instructed to refer to
Box 4 on their DS-2019 in order to get the full program length, up to
four years, for the admitted nonimmigrant's I-94, which will reduce the
need for the annual re-appointment cycle that the commenter cites. This
allows categories with longer programs, such as Alien Physicians, to
only require an EOS every 4 years, and other categories to only require
them if they exceed their maximum duration and can extend beyond that.
This will limit the number of EOS requests from J-1 nonimmigrants while
still providing the necessary oversight the rule seeks to provide.
Since the overall cost of an EOS request is small compared to the
lengthy programs for Alien Physicians admitted on J-1 visas, this is
not expected to deter physicians from practicing in the United States,
and they will continue to support the healthcare industry. Any
reduction in J-1 Alien Physicians is expected to be minimal and not
impact healthcare systems in a significant way.
Comments: A couple of commenters expressed concern about the
broader economic and diplomatic impact of the proposed rule. One
commenter stated that DHS must analyze the financial and diplomatic
impact of the proposed rule, beyond direct impacts to the education
sector, including the presence and contributions of foreign students in
U.S. higher education, workforce development, global understanding, and
impact on foreign relations more generally.
Response: DHS acknowledges the commenters' concerns about United
States image abroad. DHS believes the United States will remain a
destination of choice for foreign nationals in the F academic student,
J exchange visitors, and I foreign information media representative
classifications, because the rule will not diminish access to quality
programs, open discussion and exchange of ideas, and other benefits
that have attracted--and will continue to attract--hundreds of
thousands of foreign nationals to the United States. For this reason,
DHS does not expect this rule to result in negative impacts on U.S.
foreign relations.
Comments: A commenter stated that DHS's cost analysis fails to
capture the disproportionate burdens placed on rural institutions and
their foreign students.
Response: DHS recognizes that this rule may impose higher burdens
on rural institutions and their foreign students as a result of greater
travel distance to complete Form I-539/I-539A. To estimate travel
costs, DHS used an average round-trip distance to an ASC of 50 miles
and the 2025 General Services Administration rate of $0.70 per mile in
the regulatory impact analysis of the NPRM. DHS acknowledges that some
nonimmigrants will differ from that average depending on proximity to
ASCs and access to transportation. Additionally, this rule does not
prevent students or other nonimmigrants subject to the rule from
enrolling or participating in their programs in rural areas. While
there is an increased possibility of travel costs, these costs should
be minimal over the length of their program and will not serve as a
deterrent to those nonimmigrants who wish to participate in programs in
rural areas.
(3) Concerns About Taxpayer Burden
Comments: A couple of commenters expressed concern about the burden
the proposed rule would place on U.S. taxpayers. One of these
commenters stated that SEVIS is funded by users (not taxpayers), and
the proposed changes would precipitate ``countless
[[Page 45090]]
millions in taxpayer-funded expenditures for enforcement.''
Response: DHS recognizes that a reduction in the number of
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors applying for visas or for F
or J status in the United States will impact the amount of fees
collected by SEVP and DoS from nonimmigrant students and exchange
visitors through visa applications and SEVIS fees. These fees are used
to cover the operational costs associated with processing the
applications and adjudications, and thus any decrease in fee payments
would be associated with a corresponding decrease in costs. As USCIS is
fee funded, they can adjust the required resources as needed based on
volume and the amount of fees received to process forms.
Further, DHS does not expect substantial reductions in the number
of nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors applying for visas or
for F or J status in the United States as a result of this rule. DHS
acknowledged in the NPRM that the elimination of D/S has the potential
to reduce nonimmigrant student enrollment and participation of exchange
visitor and foreign media representatives due to additional costs and
other burdens associated with extensions of the admission period. DHS
expects foreign students to consider the cost of extending their status
in the context of the overall cost of their program, which may include
expenses such as tuition, textbooks, room and board, and discretionary
expenses. Because the cost of status extension is small, relative to
the overall cost of attendance, DHS does not expect potential reduction
in enrollment due to this added cost to be significant.
f. Costs to Representatives of Information Media
Comments: One commenter stated that media outlets would face
significantly higher costs due to the need for constant rotation of
international correspondents, jeopardizing the sustainability of U.S.
bureaus. The commenter remarked that all costs of correspondents'
stays, housing, insurance, travel, schooling, are fully funded by media
organizations, not by U.S. taxpayers.
A commenter stated that, from an administrative perspective,
implementing 2-year admissions and extensions would significantly
reduce the frequency of filings and this would likely lower the number
of I visa extension petitions DHS would have to adjudicate each year.
The commenter stated that this reduction would, in turn, decrease both
applicant costs and agency workload. The commenter further stated that
reducing repeat filings within the small, well-defined I visa
population aligns with DHS's objectives under Executive Orders 12866
and 14192 to maximize net benefits and minimize private sector
expenditures. The commenter also suggested that allowing multiple
extensions, without a numeric cap, and authorizing up to 5-year visa
validity through reciprocity, would help reduce backlogs at consular
posts and POEs. This would still enable DHS to conduct regular checks
at each 2-year admission and with every EOS filing.
One commenter estimated that more frequent I visa renewals would
increase operational and travel costs by approximately 700 percent over
a 5-year period, creating what they characterized as an unreasonable
financial burden.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ The commenter did not provide a source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS recognizes the public's desire to minimize impacts to
media outlets and international correspondents. However, DHS disagrees
that the rule meaningfully increases the rotation of these
correspondents by setting a fixed admission period of 240 days (90 days
for I nonimmigrants presenting passports from the PRC except Hong Kong
SAR and Macau SAR passport holders) with no limit on the number of
extensions that an I nonimmigrant may apply for, or the number of times
the I nonimmigrant may apply for admission at a POE, so long as they
continue to pursue I activities. DHS data shows that the at least 90
percent of I nonimmigrants remain in the United States for less than
240 days.
DHS acknowledges that changing the duration of I visas from 240
days to 2 years or 5 years could reduce the number of EOS requests from
this population. However, DHS finds that most I visa holders will not
require an EOS request with a 240-day duration of stay, as the majority
of I visas stay less than the 240-day duration.\288\ Individuals who
wish to stay longer will have the ability to apply for extensions of
their stay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ DHS's analysis of ADIS data identifying length of stay of
I-visa holders between 2015 and 2024, valid as of March 21, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS chooses the 240-day stay to guarantee a regular cadence of
review for national security and fraud prevention benefits while
limiting the number of I visa holders who will need to apply for an EOS
request.
DHS disagrees with the significant cost increase for I
nonimmigrants cited by the commenters, as the cost of EOS requests
would only apply to less than 10 percent of I nonimmigrants. The
Regulatory Impact Analysis calculated the cost of an EOS request and
found that an I nonimmigrant will, on average, spend between $732 and
$1,311, depending on the level of assistance and submission method.
These costs are variable and will depend on the exact situation of the
nonimmigrant completing the form. These costs will only incur once or
twice per year, accumulating for those who remain in the United States
for a significant period of time. Overall, these costs are not
considered a large financial burden on I nonimmigrants.
3. Benefits
Comments: While providing feedback on the RIA, a commenter stated
that the NPRM fails to demonstrate any measurable security benefits
resulting from the proposed rule. The commenter also expressed that
existing oversight systems already provide extensive monitoring
capabilities. Furthermore, the commenter wrote that security resources
should be focused on actual threats rather than being diverted to
administrative processing.
Response: DHS acknowledges that it has not quantified the benefits
of the final rule in the regulatory impact analysis but disagrees with
the claim that it fails to demonstrate any measurable security
benefits. DHS has clearly articulated the security benefits of the
final rule, including enabling DHS to more effectively combat fraud and
abuse, accurately account for the accrual of unlawful presence grounds
of inadmissibility and better protect the integrity of nonimmigrant
categories such as F, J, and I classifications. By replacing the D/S
framework with fixed periods of admission, the final rule provides DHS
with periodic and direct opportunities to assess compliance with
immigration laws, detect violations, and address national security
concerns. This oversight mechanism ensures timely evaluations at pre-
determined intervals, which are critical for enforcing immigration laws
and promptly identifying risks to national security.
4. Costs-Benefits Comparison
Comments: Commenters also criticized the rule's cost-benefit
analysis and economic data as flawed and misleading, underestimating
costs and overstating benefits. Others commented that DHS had not shown
that the benefits of the rule were outweighed by the economic costs,
highlighting financial impact to higher education institutions,
exchange programs, employers, and local economies.
[[Page 45091]]
Many commenters expressed concerns that the proposed rule would
impose substantial annualized costs, exceeding $390 million across both
U.S. and non-U.S. parties, without presenting evidence of proportional
national security benefits. Approximately $86 to 88 million of the
costs would be borne by U.S. parties alone. One commenter stated that,
based on DHS's own estimate of nearly $400 million annually, the rule
would result in a cost of over $100,000 per student visa case that
would be handled differently than under current procedures. Another
commenter calculated, using DHS's estimate of $86.3 to $88.1 million in
costs to U.S. parties only and an average of 88 individuals of concern
per year, the cost would amount to approximately $1 million per
individual. A commenter suggested DHS publish a detailed return-on-
investment (ROI) or benefit analysis quantifying the estimated security
or immigration-integrity benefits, such as the number of misuse or
fraud cases the rule would prevent and the associated cost per case.
Without such evidence, the commenter stated, the rule appears to be a
costly solution in search of a problem.
Commenters criticized the proposed rule's RIA for failing to
demonstrate that its benefits outweigh its substantial costs, in
violation of basic principles of sound governance.\289\ A commenter
stated that by overlooking the well-documented economic contributions
of foreign students, the proposed rule fails to weigh costs against
claimed benefits, contrary to sound regulatory practice. Multiple
commenters stated that the cost-benefit analysis quantifies hundreds of
millions of dollars in costs while offering only qualitative
description of benefits, highlighting a failure to meet basic
regulatory standards. A commenter emphasized that effective regulatory
analysis requires demonstrable evidence that benefits outweigh costs,
and asserted that the proposal does not meet this fundamental test.
They further stated that implementing the rule would constitute an
abuse of executive authority by imposing costly restrictions without
delivering proportionate benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ Commenters referenced E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993); E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: DHS acknowledges there are costs associated with the rule
as discussed in the regulatory impact analysis. The purpose of this
rule is to effectively enforce compliance with the statutory
inadmissibility grounds related to unlawful presence and to mitigate
the risks found in the D/S framework, which in turn reduces fraud,
abuse, and noncompliance with statute for the F, J, and I nonimmigrant
programs. Requiring a fixed term of admission affords immigration
officers enough predetermined opportunities to directly verify that
aliens are engaging only in those activities their respective
classifications authorize while they are in the United States, and, in
turn, more effectively enforce compliance with immigration laws as well
as monitor fraud and abuse. The rule does not direct institutions to
change their admissions or finances but requires additional oversight
of nonimmigrants to prevent fraud and abuse.
The commenter calculating a cost of $100,000 per individual is
using a particular example of potential overstay cases mentioned in the
NPRM--the nearly 77,000 F-1 students who have spent more than 10 years
in nonimmigrant student status since SEVIS was implemented in 2003. The
commentor calculating a cost of $1 million per individual is using
another particular example of potential overstay cases mentioned in the
NPRM--2,134 aliens who first entered as F-1 students between 2000 and
2010 and remain in active F-1 status today. However, the goal of this
rule is not to target specifically the individuals in these
populations, but instead to effectively enforce compliance with
statutory inadmissibility grounds related to unlawful presence and to
mitigate the risks found in the D/S framework, thereby preventing
fraud, abuse, and national security risks more generally. Therefore,
these calculations substantially misestimate the cost-benefit balance
of this rule.
Circular A-4 guidance for conducting the Regulatory Impact Analysis
says agencies should proceed only on the basis of a reasoned
determination that the benefits justify the costs, but with the
recognition that some benefits and costs are ``difficult to quantify''.
It acknowledges not all-important effects can be expressed in monetary
units, but requires the government to provide a reasoned, transparent
determination that the overall social good is a sufficient reason to
proceed, even if the purely monetized benefits are not numerically
larger than the monetized costs. DHS believes it has sufficiently met
this requirement and demonstrated that national security and fraud
detection benefits exceed the expected costs in the regulatory impact
analysis accompanying the final rule.
R. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: Disproportionate Impact on Small
Institutions
Comments: Commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would
disproportionately burden small educational institutions, stating that
DHS failed to accurately estimate or disclose the true costs and
rendering the rule non-compliant with the RFA. One commenter said the
NPRM lacks the required analysis of impacts on small entities mandated
by 5 U.S.C. 605 and stated that the rule fails to include adequate
regulatory flexibility provisions to mitigate disproportionate burdens
to small entities. A commenter stated that they estimated their school
would see, at minimum, a 75-percent reduction in F-1 student numbers
and that their business would see, at minimum, a 70-percent reduction
in annual revenue, resulting in job losses and a distinct possibility
that the school would no longer be financially viable. Another
commenter stated that DHS estimates did not reflect realities at small,
rural colleges with no dedicated international staff, noting that at
their institution, DSO duties fell to three Associate Deans of Student
Affairs who were already balancing multiple responsibilities. One
commenter asked what concrete measures DHS would implement to prevent
rule requirements from forcing smaller institutions to reduce foreign
student services or withdraw from international education entirely.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenter's concerns regarding the
analysis of impacts on small entities as required by the RFA, 5 U.S.C.
605, and the adequacy of regulatory flexibility provisions to mitigate
disproportionate burdens on small entities. However, DHS respectfully
disagrees with the commenter's assertions that the rule lacks the
required analysis and fails to include adequate regulatory flexibility
provisions.
In addition to preparing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA), DHS prepared and published a full Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA), which is available in the docket for the rule. The
IRFA and FRFA evaluate the potential impacts of the rule on small
entities, including whether the rule is likely to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The analyses
also consider alternatives to minimize such impacts while ensuring the
rule achieves its intended objectives.
DHS analyzed all the entities that would be affected by the final
rule and
[[Page 45092]]
DHS found that 78 percent of SEVP-certified institutions and 62 percent
of J exchange visitor program sponsors would be considered small
entities.
Under the final rule, DSOs and ROs will have to spend approximately
135 hours for rule familiarization and adaptation in the first year
after the rule takes effect. For each DSO, rule familiarization would
cost $6,735 in the first year after the rule takes effect.
Additionally, 1 hour of advising burden has been added per F-1/J-1
nonimmigrant already in country before the rule takes effect. This
results in an additional average of $3,630 per DSO/RO in year 1.
Further, each year DSOs/ROs will spend approximately 3 hours per F-1/J-
1 EOS request to review the Form I-539 completed by the F-1/J-1
nonimmigrant, update the SEVIS record and track EOS requests, and
advise the F-1/J-1 nonimmigrant about the extension process and the
requirements to file an EOS with USCIS. Additionally, HR staff will
spend approximately 1.5 hours per F-1 EOS request to track form updates
related to each EOS request and avoid inadvertent unauthorized
employment due to form discrepancies with the I-9. The DSO cost per EOS
request is $233.
DHS estimates that 73.4 percent of small schools will experience an
impact less than or equal to one percent of their annual revenue. DHS
estimates that the majority of small J sponsors would experience an
impact less than or equal to one percent of their annual revenue.
S. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
1. General Comments
Comments: Multiple commenters raised concerns about the proposed
changes to SEVIS and USCIS forms, which they said would increase
administrative burdens and require substantial implementation and
training costs. Multiple commenters expressed concern that the
potential additions of hundreds of thousands of I-539 extension
applications annually could conflict with the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the E-Government Act of 2002 and other policies requiring
administrative simplification.
Multiple commenters expressed concern converting the SEVIS program
process into a USCIS-adjudicated EOS process would substantially
increase the public burden due to the paperwork expansion required by
new or more frequent EOS information collection requirements (e.g.,
Form I-539/I-539A filings, biometrics appointments, potential
interviews). Another commenter stated that the proposed rule's
Sufficient Fund Requirement at 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7) appears burdensome
from the perspective of the PRA.
A commenter stated that DHS must provide accurate estimates of the
associated burden hours and costs and justify these against proven D/S
compliance tools. A commenter stated that the PRA estimate does not
reflect the realities of small rural colleges that lack dedicated
international staff, writing that the added burden of EOS filings would
overwhelm staffing capacity and place the greatest strain on students,
who would face increased costs, confusion, and delays. A commenter
noted the large amount of work that will be created at larger
institutions during the transition, noting specifically work
authorizations. Another commenter asserted that the Attorney General
has the authority for information collection, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Education.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' concerns regarding
potential legal issues, administrative burdens, and information
collection requirements associated with the proposed rule. However, DHS
respectfully disagrees with the assertions made.
Regarding concerns about administrative burdens and the potential
conflict with the PRA, DHS has carefully considered the implications of
the proposed rule and its associated information collection
requirements. DHS has determined that the rule complies with the PRA
and does not impose administrative burdens beyond what is required for
the implementation of the rule. The PRA requires federal agencies to
minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, businesses, and other
entities while ensuring the efficient collection of information
necessary for the proper performance of agency functions. DHS has
conducted an analysis of the information collection requirements and
utilized the costs burdens as part of the full Regulatory Impact
Analysis. The final RIA concluded that the overall benefits outweigh
the total costs of the rule.
DHS conducted a thorough review of all SEVIS functionality to
identify modifications necessary to guarantee the systems compliance
with the regulatory provisions. These changes include substantive and
non-substantive changes to SEVIS to support additional recordkeeping
and reporting requirements associated with recommendations for an F-1
student EOS. As these modifications are implemented SEVIS users will be
updated via Broadcast Messages and Release Planning Guides once the
changes have occurred. DHS acknowledges that these changes may incur
implementation and training costs as identified in the RIA. However,
DHS believes that the estimated burden is necessary to realize the
national security and fraud prevention benefits of this rule.
With respect to the assertion that the Attorney General has the
authority for information collections in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Education, DHS notes that the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred certain authorities and
responsibilities from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland
Security. Specifically, the Act established DHS and reassigned
functions related to immigration and other areas to the Secretary of
Homeland Security. As such, the Secretary of Homeland Security now
holds the authority to implement rules and policies within DHS's
jurisdiction, including those involving information collections.
Furthermore, the consultation referenced in 8 U.S.C. 1372(a)(1) relates
to the initial development of SEVP and SEVIS and does not require
consultation for these minimal changes to the existing information
collection request; however, DHS did consult with the ED prior to the
publication of the NPRM and the final rule.
2. ICE Forms I-20 and I-17
Comments: A commenter stated that the ``Extend Program''
functionality in the F-1 SEVIS release at the time of their comment
restricts the new program end date to no more than 1 year beyond the
student's current program end date despite the current EOS regulation
under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7) not limiting the term of the extension period,
and recommended alignment between SEVIS functionality and regulatory
provisions.
Multiple commenters had suggestions about the new items proposed on
the I-20 and I-17 forms in described in the NPRM. Commenters opined
that the proposed substantive and non-substantive changes in SEVIS
intended to facilitate the DSOs' recommendations for the EOS are not
necessary since DSOs routinely approve extensions of programs under the
D/S framework. A commenter suggested SEVIS already collected a program
end date and that a graduation/degree conferral date is duplicative and
unnecessary. Multiple commenters stated that the DHS proposal to update
the list of educational levels in the I-17 is vague. Commenters further
added that DSOs
[[Page 45093]]
have trouble mapping programs to SEVIS categories and inconsistencies
between institutional systems and SEVIS definitions could lead to
compliance or reporting challenges.
Response: DHS conducted a thorough review of all SEVIS
functionality to identify modifications necessary to implement the new
regulatory provisions from this rule. As these modifications are
implemented, SEVIS users will be updated via Broadcast Messages and
Release Planning Guides once the changes have occurred.
DHS appreciates the feedback from commenters regarding the
substantive and non-substantive changes to SEVIS. This rule will change
the way that a DSO processes the extension of an F student's program of
study. Therefore, SEVP is updating SEVIS to accommodate the new EOS
process, which will now require DSOs to recommend an extension of an F
student's AUD, instead of approving an extension.
With regard to the request to add a field to collect an F student's
graduation or degree awarded dates, DHS disagrees with the statement
that this new data element is duplicative. Separating a student's
program end date from the graduation or degree awarded date will
provide DHS with clearer data on whether a student has officially
completed their program of study. This distinction is particularly
important in cases in which DSOs do not shorten the program end date
when a student graduates or completes their program early, creating
ambiguity about the student's actual completion status. Collecting this
information will improve SEVP's ability to monitor students' completion
status and ensure accurate reporting across SEVP-certified schools.
Additionally, DHS appreciates the commenters' feedback about the
proposal to update the list of educational levels in SEVIS. DHS relies
on the National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) definitions of
educational levels,\290\ which provide a structure for determining
whether a nonimmigrant student's program of study reflects upward
academic progression. The list of educational levels that schools
should use to update their Form I-17, ``Petition for Approval of School
for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student,'' is available on Study in the
States. DHS plans to update SEVIS to be consistent and clear on how
this list of educational levels should be mapped appropriately with an
F student's program of study, thus ensuring consistency with the NCES
definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ See National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of
Education Statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/figures/fig_01.asp (last visited Mar. 18, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed support for a separate
proposal that would collect additional data through Forms I-20 and I-
17, including the integration of program information into Form I-17,
thereby replacing the current process of emailing portable document
format (PDF) files to SEVP and providing more data and information for
DHS to investigate specific cases of concern without the need for the
broader changes proposed in the rule.
Response: While DHS appreciates commenters support for ongoing SEVP
initiatives to better collect data on the Forms I-20 and I-17 in SEVIS,
this subject matter does not fall within the scope of this rule.
3. USCIS Forms I-539 and I-539A
Comments: A commenter said the NPRM's own PRA analysis for Forms I-
539/I-539A shows very large new burdens and costs and only questionable
necessity. However, another commenter stated that the additional
oversight mechanisms enabled by the proposed changes to the information
collection requirements--particularly those related to Form I-539 and
SEVIS reporting--are both necessary and appropriate. The commenter
urged DHS to require more robust and standardized documentation in EOS
applications to reduce fraud, ensure proper use of student status, and
minimize unnecessary adjudication burdens. A commenter asked whether
estimated time for biometrics appointment in conjunction with Form I-
539 was sufficient and included travel time.
Response: DHS agrees that the oversight enabled by the changes to
the Form I-539 is appropriate. The estimated time burden for Form I-539
did not change based on the changes proposed to the form. The total
annual burden to respondents increased due to the addition of
biometrics processing and the estimated number of increased
applications.
The estimated time for biometrics appointment is sufficient and
does not include travel time. Currently, the Form I-539 generally does
not require a biometrics collection visit as part of the filing. The
respondent may be requested to attend one, which is why the
instructional language indicates ``may'' rather than stating the
appointment as a requirement. As standard practice, DHS does not
capture separate burden for an activity that isn't considered a normal
part of the process; the request to attend would not contribute a
significant overall burden, so the form burden is considered adequate
to cover such occasional requests. DHS is currently working on a final
biometrics rulemaking after proposing to add a biometrics visit
requirement and considering the associated time burden for that
action.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ See Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, 90 FR 49062 (Nov. 3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Other Regulatory Requirements
1. Family Well-Being
Comments: While not expressly discussing family assessment
requirements, a commenter encouraged DHS to reassess the rule's impact
on mixed-status families and ensure that family unity and child welfare
are central to the final rule. The commenter referenced Zadvydas v.
Davis, 553 U.S. 678 (2001), stating that the Supreme Court emphasized
the importance of family unity and constitutional protections afforded
to U.S. citizen children. The commenter suggested creating a pathway to
legal permanent residency for long term F-1 nonimmigrants that have
U.S. citizen children while in the United States as a F-1 nonimmigrant.
Similarly, the commenter requested clearer guidance on how extension
requests will be evaluated, especially for individuals with deep family
ties and long-term compliance histories.
Response: DHS has reviewed this rule in line with the requirements
of section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Public
Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). DHS has systematically reviewed the
criteria specified in section 654(c)(1) Assessment of Federal
Regulations and Policies on Families, by evaluating whether this
regulatory action: (1) impacts the stability or safety of the family,
particularly in terms of marital commitment; (2) impacts the authority
of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their
children; (3) helps the family perform its functions; (4) affects
disposable income or poverty of families and children; (5) only
financially impacts families, if at all, to the extent such impacts are
justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local government or by
the family; or (7) establishes a policy concerning the relationship
between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms
of society. DHS has no data that indicates that this rule will have any
direct impacts on family well-being. Accordingly, DHS has determined
that
[[Page 45094]]
the implementation of this regulation will not negatively affect family
well-being and will not have any impact on the autonomy and integrity
of the family as an institution.
While the commenter cited, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001),
that case is inapplicable to this rulemaking. The commenter also
provided a suggestion to create a pathway to legal permanent residency
for long term F-1 nonimmigrants that have U.S. citizen children while
in the U.S. as a F-1 nonimmigrant; however, that is outside the scope
of this rulemaking. DHS notes however that family members are free to
maintain their relationships with F, J, and I nonimmigrants, regardless
of their family structure or immigration status.
2. NEPA
Comments: A professional association recommended that DHS
strengthen its position that the rule does not require an environmental
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by creating
and adopting a categorical exclusion specifically for rules that do not
increase immigration. They also took the position that the existing
categorical exclusion cited by DHS is flawed and overly broad, lacking
specific reasoning tied to immigration policy, further stating that
since the proposed rule does not increase immigration--and therefore
does not contribute to population growth, a key environmental concern
under NEPA--it would qualify for a properly tailored categorical
exclusion. The commenter finished by remarking that establishing such
an exclusion would provide a more robust procedural safeguard and
reinforce DHS's compliance with environmental law.
Response: DHS appreciates the recommendation and the commenter's
interest in matters of immigration, but creating a new categorical
exclusion under NEPA is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Further
agency finds no current need for such a categorical exclusion for this
rulemaking since the rulemaking already complies with all necessary
laws.
3. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Comments: Many commenters generally claimed the rule does not
comply with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Some commenters
characterized the rule as an unfunded mandate for educational
institutions, U.S. entities, federal agencies, program sponsors, and
states. One estimated that the rule would require over 1.2 million
additional administrative hours annually across higher education,
translating to approximately $60 million in unfunded personnel costs.
Another commenter pointed out that these new costs were being imposed
at a time when state or educational institution budgets are already
strained. Another individual specifically pointed out that the rule
imposes massive costs on educational institutions without adequate
federal funding, potentially violating UMRA requirements. A commenter
stated that the proposal amounts to an unfunded mandate on
institutions, forcing universities to become extensions of the federal
immigration bureaucracy and spend limited resources on compliance staff
and systems. Another commenter warned that the rule would divert
resources from education and research, transforming educational offices
into an extension of USCIS and focused on processing paperwork rather
than providing legitimate student support. Commenters further
challenged the rule's compliance with the UMRA, arguing that DHS failed
to properly estimate and disclose the true costs imposed by the rule
such as additional administrative staff hiring needs, training costs of
DSOs or other administrative staff, and administrative tracking and
processing costs. A professional association further suggested that DHS
relied on flawed and misleading economic data, which prevented the
public from receiving accurate notice of the proposal's true costs.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenter's concerns regarding the
potential applicability of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, to the proposed rule. DHS understands that
UMRA requires federal agencies to assess the effects of discretionary
regulatory actions that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more (adjusted for inflation) in any year by State, local, or tribal
governments, or by the private sector.
DHS has carefully evaluated the final rule to ensure compliance
with UMRA. Based on DHS's analysis in the final regulatory impact
analysis, the rule does meet the threshold for expenditures that would
trigger the requirements of UMRA. In addition, DHS updated the
regulatory impact analysis between the NPRM and the final rule, where
DHS was able to obtain more detailed data in the analysis and updated
some assumptions, such as familiarization costs, in response to the
public comments. DHS has completed a written statement under UMRA in
Section VI.E. of this final rule.
4. Federalism
Comments: Commenters also raised concerns about federalism. One
individual remarked that education is traditionally a state function
under the Tenth Amendment and another commenter posited that Federal
restrictions effectively forcing states to restructure their
educational programs undermine state fiscal autonomy, potentially
compelling states to raise taxes or diminish education quality to cover
resulting shortfalls. Commenters stated that decisions about whom to
teach should rest with local educational institutions, consistent with
principles of federalism and State sovereignty. One individual said
that the proposed rule does not provide a federalism impact summary or
Tribal impact summary as required by Executive Orders 13132 and 13175,
writing that U.S. universities enrolling foreign students are often
part of larger state higher education systems or Tribal colleges. They
went on to reason that if program sponsors are correctly viewed as
State or Tribal entities operating through State or Tribal budgets,
with employees considered State or Tribal workers, then these impact
analyses might be required by the aforementioned Executive Orders.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' concerns regarding
federalism and the potential impacts of the proposed rule on State and
Tribal entities, including remarks about education traditionally being
a state function under the Tenth Amendment and the implications for
state fiscal autonomy and sovereignty. DHS emphasizes that the rule has
been carefully crafted to align with federal statutory authority and
policy objectives while minimizing undue interference with State and
Tribal functions. The rule does not mandate changes to State or Tribal
educational programs or directly compel States or Tribes to restructure
their budgets, raise taxes, or diminish education quality. Rather, the
rule is intended to ensure compliance with federal immigration laws and
policies, which operate within the scope of DHS's jurisdiction.
Additionally, the effects of this rule that the commenters mentioned
are speculative and are, at most, indirect effects.
Regarding Executive Orders 13132 (Federalism) and 13175
(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), DHS has
reviewed the rule and determined that it does not have substantial
direct effects on States, Tribes, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and State or Tribal
[[Page 45095]]
governments. As such, DHS has concluded that a federalism impact
summary is not required for this rule. While DHS acknowledges that some
U.S. universities enrolling foreign students are part of larger State
higher education systems or Tribal colleges, the rule does not alter
the fundamental structure or operations of these entities in a manner
that would trigger the requirements of these Executive Orders.
U. Out of Scope
DHS received a wide range of comments, described in detail below,
which fall outside the scope of this rulemaking. This includes
potential legal challenges to the rule, hiring difficulties for aliens,
requests for advance notice for planned SEVIS outages, a desire to
collect more precise data in SEVIS, university admissions policies,
tuition costs, elimination of work authorizations, abuses in practical
training by technology consulting companies, desired changes to the
practical training structure, employment-based immigration,
humanitarian and family-based immigration, DACA, other nonimmigrant
categories, a desired expansion of the Voluntary Self-Reported Exit
program, and broader political or cultural concerns. DHS appreciates
these comments and has taken them under advisement for the future.
DHS recognizes the contributions and challenges faced by foreign
students, scholars, and exchange visitors, as well as the need for
system stability and program integrity. This rule is focused
specifically on the admission and maintenance of status for F, J, and I
nonimmigrant classifications, and does not set or revise overall
immigration policy, establish new quotas, or create new eligibility
categories. The rule does not apply to DACA recipients, who are not in
any lawful immigration status. This rule was carefully developed to
comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
DHS has carefully considered public comments and the potential
impacts on affected parties in developing this rule, and remains
committed to ensuring the integrity, security, and fairness of the U.S.
immigration system. DHS will continue to monitor and respond to legal
developments or challenges as appropriate, and appreciates all input
received, even where it falls outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Accordingly, DHS will not provide further detailed responses to
comments that do not directly relate to the provisions of this rule. A
summary of these out-of-scope comments follows.
A commenter warned that multiple parties would have standing to
challenge the rule, including student plaintiffs facing imminent harm
from retroactive status changes, universities facing administrative
costs and lost enrollment, and businesses reliant upon foreign student
spending. Additionally, the commenter provided discussion of venue
considerations, damage claims, and preliminary relief standards as part
of potential legal challenges to the proposed rule.
Commenters shared experiences of being unable to accept contract
roles due to citizenship requirements or facing rejection during job
searches before reaching interview stages. Commenters expressed
concerns about system stability, requesting more advanced notice for
planned SEVIS outages that affect school processing capabilities.
Commenters stated that university prices continue to increase for
Americans, Americans continue to take on educational debt and face
school admission difficulty. Commenters expressed concern that foreign
students increase competition for admissions which leads to a decrease
in educational and leadership opportunities for Americans. A commenter
argued that the presence of foreign students does not enhance the
educational experience of American students. Additionally, commenters
raised concerns and challenges regarding foreign teaching assistants
with limited English proficiency or subject matter expertise which
impacts the quality of education. Conversely, other commenters opposed
these views.
Many commenters voiced concerns on the difficulty of Americans
finding work and the impact of foreign students and workers on American
jobs and wages. Some commenters suggested that DHS eliminate work
authorizations for nonimmigrants to preserve job opportunities for
American workers. Other commenters made comments on other impacts of H-
1B and similar programs on U.S. workers.
Some commenters recommended eliminating or significantly modifying
the OPT and CPT program. A commenter argued that OPT violates the INA
by allowing student visa holders to work after completing their
degrees. Commenters stated that ``Day One CPT'' functions as an
employment status rather than as an educational status. Another
commenter maintained that OPT circumvents congressionally determined
limits on H-1B visas and saturates the American labor market with
foreign job seekers who may accept lower wages. However, some
commenters defended the OPT program because the participants are more
likely to work in STEM fields, the program provides valuable work
experience and strengthens the talent pipelines between U.S.
educational institutions and companies.
Many commenters were supportive of limiting nonimmigrant access to
CPT and (to a lesser degree) OPT. While generally expressing support
for the proposed rule, commenters expressed concerns over CPT and OPT,
remarking that these programs are ``heavily abused'' by technology
consulting companies and create an unfair advantage for foreign
workers.
A commenter stated that CPT should be approved by USCIS. One
commenter stated that CPT should be abolished because it takes jobs
away from Americans. Commenters opposed to changes in CPT/OPT stated
that some F-1 students remain in CPT/OPT because of the difficulty in
obtaining H-1B status. One commenter stated that foreign students are
forced to stay in F-1 status by the H-1B lottery. Another commenter
raised concerns regarding the recent H-1B lottery reforms and $100,000
entry fees, noting low percentages of selection rates through the
lottery process.
A commenter recommended that DACA recipients should be excluded
from the proposed rule. Separately, a commenter stated that the use of
the term ``alien'' to describe human beings from another country was
dehumanizing people from abroad and not appropriate.
Some commenters suggested improving transparency and accessibility
in labor market testing, utilizing the creation of a national job
posting board for Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) listings
and broader job advertisement requirements.
A commenter recommended expanding SEVIS to collect more precise
employment data for F-1 students participating in CPT and OPT,
including third-party placement tracking and wage reporting.
Commenters proposed a wide range of restrictions, limits, and
procedural changes to various nonimmigrant and immigrant visa
categories. Suggestions included stricter eligibility requirements,
more frequent visa applications, shorter stay limits, increased
background checks and monitoring (especially for certain
nationalities), biometric identity cards, caps on foreign student
numbers, mandatory out-of-country renewals, and higher costs for visa
applicants. Some advocated for reducing or eliminating
[[Page 45096]]
student visas, prioritizing American students and workers, and
restricting or pausing visa issuance until border security is achieved.
Others recommended changes to marriage fraud prevention, the B-1/B-2
and H-1B programs, and the OPT program, including subjecting OPT hires
to the same taxation as U.S. citizens. Additional recommendations
included new reporting and biometric requirements, special policies for
medical graduates and high-skilled talent, and exemptions for
healthcare workers from certain H-1B fees. Some commenters also called
for country-specific restrictions based on perceived security risks.
Some commenters also recommended expanded waivers and pathways for
physician International Medical Graduates, preserving OPT for medical
graduates transitioning to residency, creating exceptions for medical
and biomedical research training, and establishing a ``Legal Privilege
Status'' for high-skilled global talent with flexible work
authorization. Commenters supported expanding visa opportunities for
individuals perceived as contributing positively to the U.S. economy
and society.
A commenter expressed support for expanding the Voluntary Self-
Reported Exit program, suggesting that integration with the existing
SEVIS system could provide DHS with more effective tracking and
oversight of ability visa holders' departures than annual extension
applications.
A commenter stated that the NPRM failed to evaluate how the fixed
admission model would affect populations beyond the F, J and I
categories. The commenter further stated that the NPRM overlooked the
impact on individual R-1 religious workers who pursue academic study or
ministerial training in the United States, who often transition between
student and religious worker status.
Commenters made out-of-scope remarks about various immigration
statuses and programs, including general opinions on foreign student
processing; concerns and allegations about general lack of immigration
law enforcement and immigration fraud; allegations related to visa
applicants, employment-based immigration (including H-1B fraud, EB-1,
EB-2 NIV and I-140), family-based immigration (marriage, green card),
B-1/B-2 visitors, and humanitarian-based immigration such as waivers
and the asylum process; concerns about H-1B program costs; a request to
lift travel ban for Iranians; and concerns that the visa program
promotes slave labor and corporate incentives that render U.S. laws
meaningless and generally disadvantage Americans. Another commenter
raised concerns about F-1 students engaged in ELT programs and urged
DHS to halt F-1 visa issuance for all ELT programs.
Other out of scope comments unrelated to the rule included general
support for enforcing immigration laws, general opposition to social
media monitoring and surveillance of students; general opposition to
various Presidents, general opposition to various Administrations'
policy decisions (including open borders, closed borders) and
government officials, remarks about American voters and culture,
comments urging the government address illegal immigration and avoid
pursuing policies which impact social security checks, opposition to
billing code changes, general support that public funded institutions
should benefit Americans; general political opposition, concerns about
public safety, comments generally concerned about national security,
counterproliferation, and infrastructure (including domestically and
with respect to China, India, and Middle-Eastern countries), general
comments about freedom of speech concerns, comments indicating that
corporate employers benefit financially from the foreign student
program and hiring foreigners (some commenters indicating that
politicians and/or government officials permits this), statements which
did not explain with sufficient specificity what or who the commenter
was referring to, a comment indicating a test of the commenting system,
one commenter suggested an elaborate legislative proposal modifying the
hiring, recruiting, and interview process; a request for an exception
for a specific individual from China; statements about reinstating the
McLaren-Warren act, requests to release ``the Epstein Files,'' request
to revoke specific media visas issued, and a congratulatory message to
``Mr. Edlow'' on his confirmation as USCIS director.
V. Discussion of the Final Rule
All persons arriving at a POE to the United States must be
inspected by a CBP officer and must apply for admission to the United
States with CBP.\292\ In the case of aliens, a CBP officer determines
whether the aliens are eligible for admission and, if they are, issues
the Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, with the nonimmigrant
classification and period of admission.\293\ For the vast majority of
aliens, their I-94 includes a specific date through which their status
is valid; they must depart the United States on or before that date. An
alien who wishes to lawfully remain in the United States in the same
status past that date generally must apply for an EOS with USCIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ See INA sec. 235, 8 U.S.C. 1225; see also 8 CFR 235.
\293\ The I-94 is used by the U.S. government to track arrivals
and departures of nonimmigrants. Originally the form was designed in
two parts--one for the Government and one for the nonimmigrant. The
second part would be stapled into the nonimmigrant's passport and
then removed upon departure. The form is now maintained
electronically and can be accessed by nonimmigrants by downloading
it from the CBP website. See CBP, Official Site for Travelers
Visiting the United States: Apply for Provisional I-94, Retrieve
Form I-94/I-95, Request Travel History and Check Travel Compliance,
https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/(last visited Jun. 4, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, certain nonimmigrant classifications, including F academic
students, J exchange visitors, and I representatives of foreign
information media, and their dependents, may be admitted into the
United States for D/S instead of a period of time with a specific
departure date. DHS has changed the admission provisions for these
particular nonimmigrant classifications, including replacing admissions
for ``duration of status'' with a fixed admission period. This will
enable immigration officers to independently and directly verify the
continued eligibility of foreign visitors in F, J, or I nonimmigrant
status. It will also require aliens who fall under certain criteria to
apply more frequently for additional admission periods.
A. Summary of Changes in the Final Rule as Compared to the NPRM
Following careful consideration of public comments received, DHS
has made several modifications to the regulatory text proposed in the
NPRM. In addition to minor changes for clarity, the changes include the
following:
Technical edits in the following sections:
[cir] 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5)--Removes prior language in the NPRM under 8
CFR 214.1(c)(5) (proposed) because the current version of the
regulation at 8 CFR 214.1(c)(7) already substantively addresses this
topic, i.e., that USCIS has discretion to grant decisions on extension
or amendment of stay request, and that decisions may not be appealed;
[cir] 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i)(C)--Revised to clarify that ``public
high school'' may also include a charter school or other similar school
funded by U.S. taxpayers;
[cir] 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii) and 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)--Revised the
titles for consistency with one another;
[[Page 45097]]
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(C)--Replaces ``F-1 nonimmigrant''
with ``F-1 student'' for consistency with the other regulatory changes,
as the terms are synonymous;
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii)--Replaces ``Automatic extension
of F stay'' with ``Automatic extension of the authorized period of
stay'';
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(i)(D)--Consistent with the discussion
in the NPRM,\294\ adds the word ``first'' to refer to the student
needing to complete his or her first academic year of a program of
study at the school that initially issued his or her Form I-20 or
successor form (unless an exception has been authorized by SEVP);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\294\ See 90 FR at 42073.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(i)(H)--Adds the phrase ``begin or
resume classes'' rather than the previously proposed ``resume
classes'';
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(ii)--Clarifies the previously proposed
transfer procedure language;
[cir] 8 CFR 214.2(f)(11)(i)(D)--Replaces ``60'' with ``30'', which
provides that an F-1 student may not request a start date that is more
than 30 days after the student's program end date. This technical
change aligns with the 30-day period that was proposed in the NPRM
under 8 CFR 214.2 (f)(11)(i)(B)(2) and with the 30-day period of
preparation for departure under new 8 CFR 214.2 (f)(5)(v); and
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(vi)--Replaces ``J-1 stay'' with ``J-1
authorized period of stay''.
Clarifications and substantive changes in the following
sections:
[cir] 8 CFR 214.1(c)(3)(v)--Clarifies that those who fall under 8
CFR 214.1(m) may be eligible for an EOS if admitted for D/S;
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)(ii) and (iii)--Clarifies that under the
transition regulations, DHS reserves the discretion to extend the
period exempting the filing of the Form I-539 or successor form beyond
the dates and instances provided under paragraph (i) and (ii) regarding
OPT and STEM OPT (by moving part of the proposed paragraph (ii) from
the NPRM into a new standalone paragraph (iii) in the final rule, to
correctly reflect that the new paragraph (iii) applies for the entire
subsection);
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i)--Clarifies when additional time may
be granted to F-1 students by referencing additional activities and the
accompanying CFR sections which provide procedures for those activities
(i.e., adding ``to complete their program of study, as described in
paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8)(iv) of this section, begin a new program
of study, as described in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(D) and (f)(7) of this
section, or'');
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A)--Clarifies the language
prohibiting transfers and changes in educational objectives for F-1
students at any level below the graduate degree level, prohibiting them
from transferring or changing educational objectives, i.e., majors or
educational levels, within the first academic year of a program of
study, unless an exception is authorized by SEVP for extenuating
circumstances. Adds ``a student needing to change schools to complete
elementary or secondary education'' to the non-exhaustive list of
examples of extenuating circumstances. Clarifies that an F-1 student at
the graduate level or above may not change educational objectives at
any point during their program of study. Prohibits an F-1 student at
the graduate level or above from transferring at any point during their
program of study, unless an exception is authorized by SEVP for
extenuating circumstances;
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(C)--States that the prohibition for
an F-1 student to maintain, be admitted, or otherwise be provided F-1
status at the same or lower educational level after completing a
program applies to those aliens who have completed a program after the
effective date of this final rule;
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(E)--Limits the ability to delay or
suspend the implementation of 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) for
a period of two years from the effective date of the rule since this
provision is not needed indefinitely. Further, adds that if DHS delays
or suspends any provisions in new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A) through (C)
governing the change in educational objectives, DHS will make an
announcement of the delay or suspension by publication of a notice in
the Federal Register. This is in addition to the announcement on SEVP's
website;
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v)--Clarifies that an F-1 student who
completes their course of study or any authorized practical training
early must depart, with any eligible dependents, within 30 days from
the end date of their study or training or otherwise seek to maintain
lawful status (by adding ``However, if the F-1 student ends his or her
study or training prior to expiration of his or her period of
admission, the F-1 student, and any eligible dependents, must, within
30 days from the end date of the study or training, depart the United
States or otherwise seek to maintain lawful status.'') This section
also clarifies that if an F-1 student fails to maintain a full course
of study or otherwise fails to maintain status, not only are they not
eligible for any additional time for departure, but they must also
leave the country immediately;
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(i)(C) and (D)--As proposed in the NPRM,
prohibits an F-1 student in a graduate level program of study from
changing educational objectives or transferring to an SEVP-certified
school, but clarifies that this does not apply if an exception is
authorized by SEVP under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A);
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(D)--Revises the proposed language
for F-1 students recommended for post-completion OPT to make is clear
that they can seek admission through CBP after travel abroad or an EOS
with USCIS;
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii)(C)--Clarifies that the departure
period of 30 days applies equally for those whose programs have ended
early and those whose programs completed on time (by adding ``If the
program end date is shortened, the J-1 exchange visitor and any J-2
accompanying dependents, must leave the United States within 30 days
from the new program end date or otherwise seek to maintain lawful
status in that 30-day period.'');
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv)(D)--Clarifies the process for late
requests for extensions of the current program end date. The language
was revised with terminology that accurately reflects the
responsibilities of ROs in updating the program status or program end
date on the most recent Form DS-2019, and the sponsor's
responsibilities in submitting the necessary corrections or
reinstatements;
[cir] New 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(vii)(A)--Clarifies that for J-1
nonimmigrants, employment is authorized during the pendency of a timely
filed EOS for up to 240 days, but not thereafter (by adding the phrases
``in authorized employment and''; ``but not including employment''
where applicable). Also added clarifying language to make clear that
there is a special provision for those applying for EOS during the
first six months after the effective date of the rule;
[cir] Revised 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ix)--Refers to DHS rather than
previously proposed USCIS to not erroneously limit DHS authority
related to this provision; and
[cir] New 8 CFR 248.1(e)--Continues to reference the aliens Form I-
20 or Form DS-2019, but removes previously proposed text referring to
those forms accompanying the change of status
[[Page 45098]]
application that was approved prior to the alien's departure.
B. General Period of Admission for F and J Nonimmigrants
DHS continues to develop its systems and processes in order to
implement all provisions of the final rule. DHS will admit F-1 and J-1
nonimmigrants for up to the length of their program listed on the Form
I-20 or Form DS-2019, or successor form, not to exceed a period of 4
years. These nonimmigrants will also receive an additional 30-day
period for arrival prior to the start date listed on their forms and a
30-day period to prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to obtain
lawful authorization to remain in the United States. See new 8 CFR
214.1(a)(4)(i) through (iii); and new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5) and (j)(1)(ii).
In this final rule, DHS has clarified that F and J nonimmigrants whose
programs end early must either leave the United States or otherwise
seek to maintain lawful status within 30-days from the new program end
date. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v) and (j)(1)(ii)(C).
The period of admission for F-2 and J-2 dependents may not exceed
the authorized period of stay of the principal F-1 or J-1 nonimmigrant.
DHS addresses the following circumstances that might apply when F
and J nonimmigrants apply for admission at a POE:
Aliens who departed the United States, including those
seeking admission before their timely filed EOS application has been
adjudicated, but after their previously authorized period of stay has
expired, could be eligible to be admitted for the length of time
required to reach the program end date noted in their most recent Form
I-20 or DS-2019, not to exceed 4 years, plus a period of 30 days to
prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to obtain lawful
authorization to remain in the United States, similar to an initial
period of admission. See new 8 CFR 214.1(a)(4)(i)(A) and (ii)(A). USCIS
would consider the alien's EOS application abandoned because the
alien's new fixed date of admission based on the most recent I-20 or
DS-2019 had already been determined by CBP upon the most recent
admission to the United States, and thus the pending EOS application is
extraneous. See new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(8).
Aliens who departed the United States and are applying for
admission before their timely filed EOS application has been
adjudicated, but before their previously authorized period of stay has
expired, could be eligible to be admitted either for: the length of
time as indicated by the program end date noted in their most recent
Form I-20 or DS-2019, not to exceed 4 years, plus a period of 30 days
to prepare for departure or to request admission for the previous
period authorized admission and wait for USCIS to adjudicate the EOS.
If the alien is admitted for the program length (not to exceed 4 years,
as applicable), USCIS would consider the alien's EOS application
abandoned because the alien's new fixed date of admission based on the
most recent I-20 or DS-2019 had already been determined by CBP upon the
most recent admission to the United States, and thus the pending EOS
application is extraneous; or the period of time remaining on their
previously authorized period of admission. CBP could admit the alien
for a period of time not to exceed the unexpired period of stay that
was authorized before the alien's departure, plus a period of 30 days
to prepare for departure. In this scenario, in accordance with new 8
CFR 214.1(c)(8), an alien's EOS application is not considered abandoned
and USCIS could grant a new period of stay upon subsequent adjudication
of the EOS application. See new 8 CFR 214.1(a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii).
DHS is providing additional clarification here in this preamble that in
order to facilitate admission in this scenario, aliens should be
prepared to provide evidence of a timely filed extension in the form of
a receipt notice issued by DHS for either instance detailed above.
Aliens who departed the United States after timely filing
an EOS application and are reapplying for admission after their EOS
application is granted. In such cases, CBP could admit them for a
period of time not to exceed the time authorized by their approved EOS,
plus a period of 30 days to prepare for departure. See new 8 CFR
214.1(a)(4)(i)(C) and (a)(4)(ii)(C). When applying for admission at a
POE while their application for employment authorization is pending,
they should have a notice (currently Form I-797) issued by USCIS
indicating receipt of the application for employment authorization
(currently Form I-765) necessary for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT
and their latest I-20 endorsed by their DSO approving OPT or STEM OPT
with a proposed end date. See new 8 CFR 214.1(a)(4)(iii).
Aliens who departed the United States without an approved
EOS application and are applying for admission with a valid Form I-20
or Form DS-2019, or successor form, may be admitted for the length of
time as indicated by the program end date noted in their Form I-20 or
DS-2019, not to exceed 4 years, plus a period of 30 days to prepare for
departure. See new 8 CFR 214.1(a)(4)(i)(A) and (ii)(A) and new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5) and (j)(1)(ii)(A).
F nonimmigrants applying for admission to engage in post-
completion OPT or STEM OPT may, generally, be admitted either up to the
expiration date noted on their EAD or up to the DSO's recommended
employment end date for post completion or STEM OPT specified on their
Form I-20, whichever is later, plus a 30-day period to prepare for
departure. See new 8 CFR 214.1(a)(4)(iii) and new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5).
When applying for admission at a POE while their application for
employment authorization is pending, they should have a notice issued
by USCIS indicating receipt of the employment authorization application
necessary for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT (currently Form I-797)
and their latest I-20 indicating approval for OPT or STEM OPT by their
DSO with a suggested end date.
The method to calculate the period of admission for F-1
and J-1 nonimmigrants is explained. The 30-day period before the
indicated report date or program start date and 30 additional days
following the program end date do not count towards the maximum. See
new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5), (f)(7)(vi), (j)(1)(ii) and (j)(1)(iv)(C). The
calculation of the 4-year maximum period of admission will not begin
from the date of admission during that 30-day arrival window, but from
the program start date. Similarly, the 30-day departure periods for F-1
and J-1 nonimmigrants will not count towards the 4-year maximum period
of admission. This will avoid a scenario where an F-1 or J-1 seeks
admission 30 days prior to the program start date, is admitted for a
maximum 4 year period of admission to complete a 4 year program, but
receives a period of admission calculated from the date of entry,
meaning that the end of their period of admission would end 30 days
prior to their 4 year program end date, thereby requiring the F-1 or J-
1 to apply for an EOS or depart and re-enter the United States.
Under this final rule, certain aliens applying for admission
pursuant to the provisions relating to automatic extension of visa
validity in the case of an absence not exceeding 30 days solely in
contiguous territory or adjacent islands could be admitted up to the
unexpired period of stay authorized prior to their departure and the
visa is considered automatically extended to the date of application
for readmission only. See new 8 CFR 214.1(b)(1) and 22 CFR 41.112(d).
[[Page 45099]]
All of these cases assume, consistent with this final rule, that
the admission period of any F or J nonimmigrant previously admitted for
D/S will be transitioned to a fixed date of admission upon travel
outside the United States. To provide adequate notice to aliens
previously admitted for D/S regarding the date when their admission
period ends pursuant to the transition, an alien's period of admission
will expire on the program end date on the alien's Form I-20 or DS-2019
that is valid on the final rule's effective date, not to exceed a
period of 4 years from the final rule's effective date, plus the
currently permitted additional period of 60 days for F nonimmigrants
and 30 days for J nonimmigrants to depart. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1).
DHS believes that this will provide adequate notice because all
students and exchange visitors in F or J nonimmigrant status who wish
to extend their program currently need to apply for permission with
their DSO or RO. At that time, the DSO or RO could explain that they
are recommending a program extension, but the F or J nonimmigrant must
apply for an EOS directly with DHS or depart the United States and seek
readmission, and such EOS or readmission must be granted to remain
lawfully in or to re-enter the United States, respectively.
Under current policy, F and J nonimmigrants admitted for D/S do not
accrue unlawful presence until the day after USCIS formally finds a
nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another
immigration benefit or on the day after an immigration judge orders the
alien excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision is
appealed), whichever comes first.\295\ In reliance on this policy, some
F and J nonimmigrants admitted for D/S may not have taken the
appropriate steps to maintain status, otherwise change status, or
depart the United States. This final rule is concerned with providing
adequate notice to allow F and J nonimmigrants who are maintaining
status to transition to a new date-certain admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ See USCIS Memorandum, supra note 72 (which currently
applies unlawful presence to F, J, and I nonimmigrants in relation
to duration of status but which will change accordingly when
duration of status no longer applies to them.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although some F and J nonimmigrants may have program end dates
longer than 4 years, DHS believes that using the program end date on
the Form I-20 or DS-2019, up to a maximum 4-year period of admission,
as the fixed date of admission is the best option because it aligns
with the general structure of post-secondary education while still
allowing for the government to have increased oversight of this
population through the requirement that those nonimmigrants who wish to
remain beyond their authorized period of admission either apply to
extend their stay or depart the United States and seek readmission.
According to the ED, students can normally earn a bachelor's degree in
4 years \296\ and non-resident students normally earn their bachelor's
degrees within 4 years of entry.\297\ The total number of F-1 students
pursuing a bachelor's degree in 2023 was 457,906, constituting almost
34 percent of the 2023 nonimmigrant student population. The total
number of F-1 students pursuing a master's degree, generally 2-year
programs, in 2023 was 608,857, representing almost 45 percent of the
nonimmigrant student population. Taken together this population
represents almost 79 percent of the nonimmigrant students in the United
States.\298\ Therefore, DHS believes that a 4-year period of admission
will not pose an undue burden on them, because many F and J
nonimmigrants will complete their program within a 4-year period and
not have to request additional time from DHS. The smaller proportion of
students not pursuing a bachelor's or master's degree are enrolled in
different programs, which may last more or less than 4 years.\299\
While DHS acknowledges the additional burden that this rule would
impose on students engaged in programs lasting longer than 4 years, DHS
believes that the benefit to program integrity of this rule would
outweigh the burden to this population. Before arriving at the 4-year
admission periods, DHS considered various options, which were discussed
within the NPRM.\300\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\296\ See The Mobile Digest of Education Statistics, The
Structure of American Education (2017), https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/mobile/The_Structure_of_American_Education.aspx.
\297\ See National Center for Education Statistics. (2024).
Graduation rate from first institution attended for first-time,
full-time bachelor's degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary
institutions, by race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex, control of
institution, and percentage of applications accepted: Selected
cohort entry years, 1996 through 2017 (Table 326.10). In The Digest
of Education Statistics, 2024. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d24/tables/dt24_326.10.asp (last visited Feb. 9, 2026).
\298\ See ICE, 2023 SEVIS by the Numbers Report (May 10, 2024),
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/btn/24_0510_hsi_sevp-cy23-sevis-btn.pdf.
\299\ Other programs include associate degrees, language
training programs, and Ph.D. programs, among others.
\300\ See 90 FR at 42082-83 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Automatic Extension of Visa Validity at POE for Contiguous Travel
DHS changed the admission language in the provision relating to
extension of visa validity in limited situations from ``shall'' to
``may'' to clarify that CBP always maintains the discretion to
determine whether an alien is admissible and the appropriate period of
admission. This change removes any ambiguity about whether CBP has an
absolute duty to admit an alien to clarify that CBP has the discretion
to admit an alien for a certain period of time, consistent with
statutory and regulatory authorities. See new 8 CFR 214.1(b)(1).
DHS made technical revisions to the visa revalidation provisions
allowing certain F, J, and M nonimmigrants to apply for admission if
eligible for admission as an F, J, or M nonimmigrant if they are
applying for admission after an absence from the United States not
exceeding 30 days spent solely in contiguous territory or adjacent
islands. See new 8 CFR 214.1(b). Such technical revisions include
updating language to clarify that ``visa revalidation'' refers to
automatic extension of visa validity at the POE to the date of
application for readmission only. These provisions apply when, for
example, a nonimmigrant finds himself or herself applying for re-entry
after going to Mexico on spring break without realizing that his or her
visa had expired. Instead of having to get a new visa, CBP may admit
the nonimmigrant, whose visa validity is automatically extended by
operation of DoS regulations. See 22 CFR 41.112(d). DHS does not
believe it is necessary to require a nonimmigrant to obtain a new visa
under these circumstances.
DHS made minor technical updates to account for inaccurate or no
longer applicable terms and cites. First, DHS struck the reference to
INA 101(a)(15)(Q)(ii) and reserved it, as that program no longer exists
and is no longer in the INA.\301\ See new 8 CFR 214.1(b)(1)-(3).
Second, DHS struck the reference to ``duration of status'' in
redesignated 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vii) and new 8 CFR 214.1(b)(1),
214.2(f)(18)(iii), and 274a.12(b)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\ See Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act
of 1998, Public Law 105-319, 112 Stat. 3013 (Oct. 30, 1998), as
amended by Public Law 108-449, 114 Stat. 1526 (Dec. 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. EOS
This final rule will not create a new form for an EOS application.
However, in the future, some form names and numbers may change. While
DHS plans to update existing forms to allow F and I nonimmigrants to
apply for an EOS
[[Page 45100]]
with USCIS, DHS believes it is more efficient to replace references to
specific form names and numbers throughout the current regulations with
generally applicable language.
Using general language in the regulatory text instead of referring
to specific form names and numbers helps both DHS and stakeholders. It
allows for technical changes without requiring an entirely new
rulemaking to update form names. Stakeholders will receive notice and
specific guidance on USCIS' website and in the appropriate form
instructions, as they already do for various other benefits. Therefore,
DHS uses this language in 8 CFR 214.1(c)(2) and struck the phrase
exempting F and J nonimmigrants from filing an EOS, as they will be
required to file an EOS if they wish to remain in the United States
beyond their specified date of admission. See new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(2).
Additionally, DHS struck ``other than as provided in 214.2(f)(7)''
from new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(3)(v) and added in its place ``except those who
fall under 8 CFR 214.1(m)'' to make it clear that students must apply
for an EOS. This requirement will not apply to other nonimmigrants
admitted for D/S, such as A-1 or A-2 representatives of foreign
governments and their immediate family members; they will remain
ineligible to file an EOS.
As part of the EOS application, USCIS requires biometric collection
and may require such collection from F, J, and I nonimmigrants. USCIS
has the general authority to require and collect biometrics from
applicants, petitioners, sponsors, beneficiaries, or other individuals
residing in the United States for any immigration and naturalization
benefit. See 8 CFR 103.16. Biometric collection helps USCIS confirm an
individual's identity and conduct background and security checks.
Further, USCIS may also require any applicant, petitioner, sponsor,
beneficiary or individual filing a benefit request, or any group or
class of such persons submitting requests to appear for an interview.
See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). USCIS may require such an interview as part of
the screening and adjudication process that helps confirm an
individual's identity, elicit information to assess the eligibility for
an immigration benefit, and screen for any national security or fraud
concerns.
The rule addresses the admission of F, J, and I nonimmigrants who
timely filed an EOS and/or an application for employment authorization
but left the United States before receiving a decision from USCIS. DHS
anticipates this scenario will apply mostly to F-1 students applying
for post-completion OPT and STEM OPT extensions.
While USCIS generally does not consider an application for EOS
abandoned when the nonimmigrant leaves the United States,\302\ DHS
recognizes the potential for conflict if a nonimmigrant receives
authorization from both CBP and USCIS for what amounts to the same
request (a specific period of time to pursue authorized activities).
Where an alien in F, J, or I status timely files an application for
EOS, leaves the United States before USCIS approves that EOS
application, and applies for admission to continue his or her
activities for the balance of the previously authorized admission
period, USCIS would generally not consider the EOS application
abandoned. See new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(8)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\302\ See U.S. Dep't of Justice, Memo from Cook, Acting Asst.
Comm. Programs, Travel After Filing a Request for a Change of
Nonimmigrant Status, HQ 70/6.2.9 (June 18, 2001), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/Travpub.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the general provision on admission in new 8 CFR
214.1(a)(4) where the alien leaves the United States and applies for
admission while his or her EOS application is pending and is admitted
based on a new Form I-20 or DS-2019 after his or her previously
authorized admission has expired; the pending EOS may be deemed
abandoned. In this case, the AUD provided by CBP on the alien's I-94
would govern. See new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(8)(ii). This is because, in these
cases, CBP's grant of a new period of authorized stay will supersede
the pending EOS application seeking a period of authorized stay,
rendering it superfluous.
DHS considered a policy whereby an F, J, or I nonimmigrant would
automatically abandon an EOS application upon departing the United
States. However, DHS believes such a strict requirement would not be
practical, because people cannot always predict when they will have to
travel. The decision to grant or deny an EOS, including in the event of
a departure, involves an exercise of agency discretion, utilizing the
laws, regulations, agency policy, and operational guidance.
Regarding applications for employment authorization for F-1 and J-2
nonimmigrants, DHS notes that CBP does not adjudicate applications for
employment authorization. Should an EOS application be deemed
abandoned, USCIS will continue processing any applications for
employment authorization, notwithstanding a departure, and, if the
application is approved, USCIS will not issue an EAD with a validity
date that exceeds the fixed date of admission provided to the alien at
the POE. For example, an F-1 student wishing to engage in post-
completion OPT or a STEM OPT extension will need to file both an EOS
application and an application for employment authorization. Where the
alien had departed the United States before his or her applications are
adjudicated, USCIS will not consider the employment authorization
application abandoned. See new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(8)(ii).
In all events, when an F-1 or a J-2 nonimmigrant travels while the
employment authorization or EOS application is pending, he or she is
still expected to respond to any RFE and to timely submit the requested
documents. Because an RFE may arrive after an alien departs, either
electronically or at a U.S. address, aliens traveling outside the
United States while applications are pending are advised to make
necessary arrangements to determine whether they have received an RFE
relating to their application and to timely respond to any RFE.\303\
Failure to do so could result in USCIS denying an employment
authorization or EOS application for abandonment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ See ICE, Traveling as an International Student, https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/traveling-as-an-international-student (last
visited Feb. 9, 2026). See also ICE, Travelling Outside the United
States for Five Months or Fewer, https://www.ice.gov/sevis/travel
(last updated July 8, 2025), which notes, ``Can I reenter if my
request for OPT is pending? Yes, but traveling during this time
should be undertaken with caution. USCIS may send you [an RFE] while
you are away, however, so you will want to make sure you have
provided a correct U.S. address both to your DSO and on the
application and would be able to send in requested documents. Also,
if USCIS approves your OPT application, you will be expected to have
your EAD in hand to re-enter the United States. Like a request for
further information, USCIS can only send the EAD to your U.S.
address.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Transition Period
1. F and J Nonimmigrants Who Are in D/S on the Effective Date of the
Final Rule
DHS will generally allow all F and J nonimmigrants present in the
United States on the final rule's effective date who are validly
maintaining that status and who were admitted for D/S to remain in the
United States in F or J status, without filing an EOS request, up to
the program end date reflected on their Form I-20 or DS-2019 that is
valid on the final rule's effective date, for a period not to exceed 4
years from the effective date of the final rule, plus an additional 60
days for these F nonimmigrants and 30 days for J
[[Page 45101]]
nonimmigrants to depart the country. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1).
F and J nonimmigrants who depart the United States after the rule's
effective date and before the end date reflected on their Form I-20 or
DS-2019 may be admitted with a new fixed admission period, like any
other newly admitted F or J nonimmigrant, as provided for in new 8 CFR
214.1(a)(4), based on the date on their Form I-20 or DS-2019 and 30
days for departure. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5) or (j)(1)(ii). Aliens who
need additional time to complete their current course of study,
including requests for post-completion OPT, STEM OPT, or academic
training, or would like to start a new course of study or exchange
visitor program must apply for an EOS with USCIS for an admission
period up to the new program end date, or OPT end date, listed on the
Form I-20 or DS-2019, or successor form, reflecting such an extension,
up to a maximum of 4-years. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1).
For those aliens in F-1 status, admitted for D/S, present in the
United States on September 15, 2026 who have timely filed on or before
September 15, 2026 an application for post-completion OPT or a STEM OPT
extension, there is not a requirement to file an EOS application, and,
instead, they are only required to file the application for employment
authorization for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT extension. See new 8
CFR 214.1(m)(1)(i). An F-1 nonimmigrant who departs the United States
before filing the application for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT, and
is subsequently admitted to the United States with a fixed period of
admission is required to file both an application for employment
authorization, (Form I-765 or successor form) and an Application to
Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539, or successor form),
pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(11)(i)(B)(2) or (C). See new 8 CFR
214.1(m)(1)(ii). An alien described in this section who departs the
United States while the Application for Employment Authorization is
pending or once approved will be admitted for a fixed period of time
pursuant to 8 CFR 214.1(a). Id. DHS reserves the discretion to extend
the period exempting the filing of the Application to Extend/Change
Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539 or successor form) in 6-month
increments by publication of a notice in the Federal Register. See new
8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)(iii). The final rule moved this paragraph from
paragraph (ii) to offer additional clarity, since such an extension can
also apply to paragraph (i).
An F-1 nonimmigrant who departs the United States while the
application for employment authorization for post-completion OPT or
STEM OPT is pending or once approved will be admitted for a fixed
admission period pursuant to new 8 CFR 214.1(a)(4)(iii). F-1
nonimmigrants who file for employment authorization for STEM OPT remain
eligible for the 180-day extension of their post-completion OPT EAD
while their application for STEM OPT is pending pursuant to 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(6)(iv).
Regarding pending applications for employment authorization during
the transition period, aliens in F status who are subject to the
transition and who are seeking post-completion OPT and STEM OPT
employment authorization will be authorized to lawfully remain in the
United States while the application is pending with USCIS if: (1) they
are in the United States on the effective date of the final rule with
admission for D/S; (2) they properly filed an application for
employment authorization; (3) their application is pending on the final
rule's effective date; and (4) they are not otherwise removable under
the INA. Unless otherwise advised by USCIS, they will not have to file
for an EOS or re-file an application for employment authorization. See
new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(2). If the application for employment authorization
is approved, the F-1 student will be authorized to remain in the United
States in F-1 status until the expiration date of the EAD, plus 60 days
as provided in their previous admission. If the employment application
is denied, the F-1 student will continue to be authorized to remain in
the United States until the program end date listed on their Form I-20,
plus 60 days as provided in their previous admission, as long as he or
she continues to pursue a full course of study and otherwise meets the
requirements for F-1 status. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(2)(i).
Aliens in F-1 status with pending employment authorization
applications, other than post-completion OPT and STEM OPT, also do not
need to file for an extension or refile an employment authorization
application. As long as these F-1 nonimmigrants continue to meet the
requirements for F-1 status, they continue to be authorized to remain
in the United States until the program end date listed on the Form I-
20, plus 60 days, regardless of whether the employment authorization is
approved or denied. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(2)(ii).
As discussed in the NPRM, DHS believes that this transition will
not be unreasonably burdensome on F and J nonimmigrants, and it will
enable DHS to transition F and J nonimmigrants without unduly burdening
nonimmigrants, USCIS, or CBP. Many would be able to complete their
programs per the terms of their initial D/S using the original program
end date as an expiration of their authorized period of stay. DHS may
grant such periods, which include an additional 60 days for F
nonimmigrants and 30 days for J nonimmigrants as provided in their
previous admission, automatically without an application or fee. With
this option, DHS believes that the majority of F and J nonimmigrants
will be shifted to a fixed initial period of admission of 4 years or
less. For example, J-1 research scholars and alien physicians who have
program end dates for up to 5 or 7 years respectively will need to
apply for an EOS before the 4-year maximum period of stay expires,
i.e., the date that falls 4 years after the rule becomes effective and
is listed in this rule for each program.
This will also allow DHS to transition F and J nonimmigrants to an
admission for a fixed time period without unduly burdening them, USCIS,
or CBP. It ensures that no F and J nonimmigrants remain in the United
States indefinitely by requiring all F and J nonimmigrants admitted for
D/S who wish to extend their stay beyond their program end date or the
4-year maximum, whichever is applicable, to either file an EOS request
or depart the United States and apply for admission at a POE by their
program end date or the 4-year maximum period of stay from the
effective date of this final rule, plus an additional 60 days for F
nonimmigrants and 30 days for J nonimmigrants.
DHS considered the effect of transitioning to a fixed period of
admission on F and J nonimmigrants originally admitted for D/S who
chose to temporarily come to the United States to pursue a program of
study or an exchange visitor program. DHS believes the changes will not
significantly affect the interests of these nonimmigrants admitted in
D/S. DHS is not changing the fundamental requirements to qualify for
these nonimmigrant statuses, rather it is only changing the length of
time that an individual may lawfully remain in the United States in F
or J status without filing an EOS application. Admitting these
classifications of nonimmigrants for a fixed period of admission simply
confirms that the admission is temporary and clearly communicates when
that temporary admission period ends. Further, as is the case for the
fixed period of admission policy more generally, a fixed date of
admission simply places these
[[Page 45102]]
nonimmigrants in the same position as most other nonimmigrants who are
temporarily in the United States. They will still be able to continue
to pursue their full course of study or exchange program; however, if
they need additional time in F or J status, the burden will now be on
them to request authorization directly from DHS and establish
eligibility to extend their period of stay in such status, whereas
previously they obtained an extension of lawful status in conjunction
with a program extension through a DSO or RO.
At the same time, this process will provide immigration officials
an opportunity to directly review and determine whether F and J
nonimmigrants who wish to remain in the United States beyond their
fixed period of admission are complying with U.S. immigration law and
are indeed eligible to retain their nonimmigrant status. If there are F
or J nonimmigrants relying on a D/S admission in an attempt to
permanently remain in the United States, or otherwise circumvent their
authorized status, this process will allow DHS to detect and deny an
EOS request or entry under a new period of admission. DHS considered
several alternatives in the NPRM before determining the above proposal
was the best option.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ 90 FR at 42085-86 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. I Nonimmigrants Who Are in D/S on the Effective Date of the Final
Rule
I nonimmigrants who are in the United States on the effective date
of the final rule will change from the existing D/S admission to a
fixed date of admission. DHS is adopting the proposal in the NPRM for
an automatic extension of the length of time it takes the alien to
complete his or her activity, for a period of up to 240 days. See new 8
CFR 214.1(m)(3). This is based on the period of stay authorized in 8
CFR 274a.12(b)(20), which generally provides an automatic extension of
employment authorization of 240 days to certain aliens whose status has
expired but on whose behalf an application for an EOS was timely filed
through a Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status,
and which under new 8 CFR 214.2(i), has been generally applicable to an
I nonimmigrant who changes information mediums.\305\ However, aliens
who present a passport issued by the People's Republic of China (with
the exception of a Hong Kong SAR passport or a Macau SAR passport), may
be authorized an EOS until the activities or assignments consistent
with the I classification are completed, but the EOS must not exceed
the maximum period of 90 days. See new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(3). DHS believes
that adopting an already established timeframe, to which I
nonimmigrants are already accustomed, is reasonable. Consistent with
the current process, an I nonimmigrant who departs the United States
after the effective date of this final rule and would like to return to
the United States in that same status will need to reapply for
admission as an I nonimmigrant at a POE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ See USCIS, Instructions for Application to Extend/Change
Nonimmigrant Status, https://www.uscis.gov/i-539 (last updated Jan.
9, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I nonimmigrants on D/S who seek to remain in the United States
longer than the automatic extension period provided are required to
file an EOS request with USCIS. \306\ Id. In addition to I
nonimmigrants being familiar with the timeframe under 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20), DHS anticipates that this provision will reduce any
gaps in employment due to USCIS' processing timeframes between the I
nonimmigrant's application for extension and USCIS approval of the
application. It will also facilitate an I nonimmigrant's ability to
complete his or her assignment while temporarily in the United States
on behalf of a foreign media organization, it that it will give ample
time to any I nonimmigrant to either complete that assignment or ask
for an extension, as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ In FY 2024, fewer than 38,000 aliens entered the U.S. in I
classification. See DHS FY 2024, Quarter 4, tbl.4B, supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the EOS is denied, the alien must cease working and depart the
United States immediately. As with most other nonimmigrant
classifications, they will not be given any period of time to prepare
for departure from the United States after the denial, and there may be
significant immigration consequences for failing to depart the country
immediately. For example, such aliens generally will begin to accrue
unlawful presence the day after the issuance of the denial. DHS
believes this standard provides parity across nonimmigrant
classifications.
Finally, the transition procedures do not apply to aliens in F, J,
or I nonimmigrant status who are outside the United States when the
final rule takes effect, or to any aliens present in the United States
in violation of their status. See 8 CFR 214.1(m).
F. Requirements for Admission, Extension, and Maintenance of Status of
F Nonimmigrants
Under this final rule, as outlined in the proposed rule, DHS has
changed the regulations that provide the framework for admission,
extension, and maintenance of status for F nonimmigrants. These changes
will eliminate D/S, require students to file an EOS if requesting to
remain in the United States beyond the period of their admission, and
clarify terms to ensure that the activities an F nonimmigrant has
engaged in are consistent with those of a bona fide student.
1. Admission for a Fixed Time Period
In the NPRM, DHS proposed striking the previous regulation that
allows F nonimmigrants to be admitted for D/S while also proposing to
replace it with a provision allowing F nonimmigrants to be granted
status for the length of their program, not to exceed 4 years. See
proposed 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i) and (f)(7)(vi). This is retained in the
final rule with additional clarity added to new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i).
More specifically, that paragraph references instances when additional
time may be granted to an F-1 student by adding language to reference
the completion of their program of study, as described in paragraphs
(f)(7) and (f)(8)(iv) of that section and the beginning of a new
program of study, as described in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(D) and (f)(7)
of that section.
Second, the NPRM proposed retaining in the regulations the
statutory limitation that restricts public high school students to an
aggregate of 12 months of study at any public high school(s) while also
clarifying that the 12-month aggregate period includes any school
breaks and annual vacations. This is retained in the final rule with
clarification that a public high school may also include a charter
school or other similar school funded by U.S. taxpayers. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(i)(C). Current requirements, including paying the full cost
of education, also remain in place.
Third, F-1 students who are applying to attend an approved private
elementary or middle school or private academic high school will
continue to be covered by the provisions of 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(E).
These provisions require the DSO to certify a minimum number of class
hours per week prescribed by the school for normal progress toward
graduation. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(E). However, like all other F-1
students, they will be subject to the 4-year maximum period of
admission, and they will need to apply for an EOS with DHS if staying
beyond this period. This is retained in the final rule. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(vi).
Fourth, DHS proposed exempting part-time border commuter students
[[Page 45103]]
from the general length of admission provisions. The regulations at 8
CFR 214.2(f)(18) would continue to govern these border commuter
students, including that DHS continue to admit them for a fixed time
period. This is retained in the final rule. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(i)(B).
Fifth, F-1 students in a language training program will be
restricted to an aggregate of 24 months of language study, which will
include breaks and an annual vacation. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i)(A).
This limitation is a way to prevent abuse of the F-1 program. Public
Law 111-306, enacted on December 14, 2010, and effective since 2011,
requires language training schools enrolling F-1 students to be
accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the ED. DHS has found
students enrolling in lengthy periods of language training, in some
cases for more than two decades.\307\ DHS has also identified students
who enrolled in language training programs despite previously being
enrolled in or completing undergraduate and graduate programs requiring
English language proficiency.\308\ Unlike degree programs that
typically have prescribed course completion requirements, there are no
nationally-recognized, standard completion requirements for language
training programs and students are able to enroll in language training
programs for lengthy periods of time. The lengthy enrollment in a
language program, including enrollment in language courses for long
periods subsequent to completion of a program of study that requires
proficiency in English, raises concerns about whether the F-1
nonimmigrants meet the statutory definition of a bona fide student with
the intent of entering the United States for temporary study.\309\
Therefore, there is a 24-month aggregate limit for F-1 students to
participate in a language training program, as it will provide a
reasonable period of time for students to attain proficiency while
mitigating DHS's concerns about the integrity of the program. This
timeframe generally comports with the amount of time needed to gain the
highest level of English proficiency under the Cambridge English
Exam.\310\ This is retained in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ For example, one student has been enrolled in ELT programs
at nine different schools since January 3, 2003. This student is
active in SEVIS, reportedly studying English full time as of May 7,
2025--accounting for more than 22 years of language training. The
student's most recent school issued a program extension changing the
student's program end date from January 2, 2025, to January 2, 2026.
The school input the following reason for the extension: ``Student
pursuing advanced level linguistic studies.'' The school's 2025
catalog contains no references to linguistic studies--advanced or
otherwise--and indicates the school offers general English academic
preparation, TOEFL preparation, and business English courses. DHS
analysis of data in SEVIS and valid as of May 7, 2025.
\308\ SEVIS Records show that for example a student who entered
the country in 2005 studied English and then between January 2011
and December 2024, he enrolled in a bachelor's program in Biology/
Biological Sciences, a master's program in Biotechnology, and a
second master's program in Bioinformatics. He also engaged in post-
completion OPT and two periods of STEM OPT. Each of his Forms I-20
indicated the academic programs required English proficiency, and
the student had English proficiency. However, in January 2025, the
student transferred to a language training school and remains active
in SEVIS reportedly engaged in ELT as of May 7, 2025. DHS found at
least 20 similar examples. DHS analysis of data in SEVIS and valid
as of May 7, 2025.
\309\ See INA 101(a)(15)(F).
\310\ See Cambridge English, supra note 195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sixth, DHS proposed students with pending employment authorization
applications who are admitted based on the DSO's recommended employment
end date for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT specified on their Form I-
20, with a notice issued by USCIS indicating receipt of the Application
for Employment Authorization, Form I-765 or successor form for post-
completion OPT or STEM OPT, and who cease employment authorized
pursuant to a post-completion OPT- or STEM OPT-based EAD that expires
before the alien's fixed date of admission as noted on their Arrival/
Departure Record (Form I-94 or successor form), be considered to be in
the United States in a period of authorized stay from the date of the
expiration noted on their EAD until the fixed date of admission as
noted on their I-94 (unless the student violates the terms of the
authorized stay). This is retained in the final rule. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(i)(D).
Seventh, the authorized period of stay for F-2 dependents cannot
exceed the authorized period of stay of the principal F-1 student. DHS
proposed adding this requirement and retains this proposal in the final
rule. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i)(E).
2. Changes in Educational Objectives
Prior to the implementation of this final rule, all F-1 students
who change from one educational level to another or pursue multiple
degrees in the same educational level are considered to be maintaining
status. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii). DHS has observed that some
students continuously enroll in different programs at the same degree
level, such as by pursuing multiple associate, master's, undergraduate,
bachelor's, or certificate programs. Alternatively, some students
change to a lower educational level, such as completing a master's
degree and then changing to an associate's program or an ELT
program.\311\ This has enabled some aliens to remain in the United
States for lengthy periods of time in F-1 student status, raising
concerns about the temporary nature of their stay. In 2024, DHS
identified nearly 77,000 F-1 students who have spent more than 10 years
in student status since SEVIS was implemented in 2003.\312\ This
includes individuals who enrolled in programs at the same educational
level as many as 19 times, as well as students who completed graduate
programs and then enrolled in undergraduate programs, including
associate's degrees.\313\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ Id.
\312\ DHS analysis of data in SEVIS and valid as of Mar. 17,
2025.
\313\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS has also observed a pattern of students immediately
transferring schools or changing educational levels or programs of
study upon their arrival in the United States. These students often use
an admission letter and Form I-20 from a well-known school to increase
their odds of obtaining a student visa and then immediately request a
transfer to their intended school or program of study once they have
gained admission to the United States. Some of the most egregious
examples are those who apply to a 4-year university, which requires
demonstration of sufficient English level skills for enrollment in
classes through the passage of the Test of English as a Foreign
Language test (commonly known as TOEFL), receive their visa based on
their declared intention of attending a 4-year university, and then
transfer to English language programs upon arrival. Other, more
dangerous examples, include those foreign students who receive a visa
based on their declared intention to study the humanities, but then
transfer into sensitive programs such as nuclear science. A handful of
those have been arrested for spying for China.\314\ The existing
regulations are vulnerable to exploitation by aliens who threaten U.S.
national security. This rule is designed to reduce this vulnerability.
Since 2020, there have been over 13,000 F-1 students who transferred
before the start of classes or within their first term, including over
4,400 students transferring from a higher education to ELT program of
study within their first
[[Page 45104]]
term or session of a program of study.\315\ The number of F-1 students
who changed their educational levels within the first 60 days of their
program is close to 8,400.\316\ While the number of students
transferring or changing educational levels represents a small
percentage of the total F-1 student population, these transfers are
often promoted by third-party recruiters and other for-profit entities
to allow aliens to use the student visa process to mask their intent in
the United States or circumvent F-1 restrictions.\317\ In addition,
school officials are often burdened with the administrative costs of
processing SEVIS transfer requests from F-1 students who misrepresented
their intentions of studying at their institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\314\ See CNN Politics, Chinese Engineer Sentenced to 8 years in
US Prison for Spying, supra note 82, and Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence Hearing (Feb. 13, 2018), supra note 82.
\315\ See SEVIS Data on Initial Transfers and Change of
Education Counts (Mar. 31, 2025).
\316\ Id.
\317\ On May 29, 2020, President Trump signed a Presidential
Proclamation to suspend the entry as nonimmigrants of certain
students and researchers from the PRC. See Suspension of Entry as
Nonimmigrants of Certain Students and Researchers from the People's
Republic of China, Proc. No. 10043, 85 FR 34353 (Jun. 4, 2020).
Since this proclamation, students often circumvent enforcement of
this proclamation by applying to a permissible program of study to
obtain a student visa and admission to the United States and then
transferring or changing their program of study to engage in
studies, research, and other activities that are prohibited. This is
also a tactic used by international and third-party recruiters. See
Inside Higher Ed., Gaming the Student Visa System (Jan. 12, 2024),
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/international-students-us/2024/01/12/international-admission-offices-plagued-fraud-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there may be legitimate cases of students who wish to change
their educational objective to gain knowledge at a lower or the same
educational level, the traditional path of study typically progresses
from a lower educational program to a higher one. The existing
regulations present a model consistent with the majority of bona fide
students who follow this traditional trajectory. The term ``full course
of study'' as defined in the existing regulations requires that the
program ``lead to the attainment of a specific educational or
professional objective.'' \318\ Repeated changes to a program of study
either within the same educational level or to move to a lower level,
as well as immediate changes to a program of study upon initial entry
into the United States, are not consistent with attainment of such an
educational or professional objective. This understanding was reflected
in the preamble to a 1986 rulemaking proposing changes to the F
regulations, which stated: ``The proposed regulation. . .places
limitations on the length of time a student may remain in any one level
of study. Thus, the Service has eliminated applications for [EOS] for
students who are progressing from one educational level to another but
has placed a control over students who, for an inordinate length of
time, remain in one level of study.'' \319\ But, by 1991, INS
eliminated all EOS applications and began to rely on DSO's to make the
decision on whether educational progress was being made. In the decades
that have followed, it has become clear that this has enabled thousands
to stay here for decades by switching programs and not making any
upward progress.\320\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\318\ 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i).
\319\ Nonimmigrant Classes; Change of Nonimmigrant
Classification, 51 FR 27867 (Aug. 4, 1986).
\320\ By reviewing SEVIS data as of Apr. 6, 2025, DHS has
identified 2,137 aliens who first entered as F-1 students between
2000 and 2010 and remain in active F-1 status today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the NPRM, DHS is restricting school transfers and
changes of educational objectives within a student's first academic
year of a program of study, unless an exception is authorized by SEVP,
and prohibiting F-1 students in a graduate level program of study from
changing educational objectives at any point during their program of
study. F-1 students in a graduate level program of study are also
prohibited from transferring, but the proposed regulatory text has been
amended to allow SEVP to authorize an exception to this prohibition due
to extenuating circumstances. ``Educational objectives'' refers to an
F-1 student's educational level or major. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A) and new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(i). DHS believes these
changes will accommodate the legitimate academic activities of bona
fide students, such as a desire to pursue a different field of study or
more specialized studies in their current field. These changes will
also provide SEVP with flexibility to grant exceptions for extenuating
circumstances. For example, an exception may be appropriate when a
school closes or when a school has a prolonged inability to hold in-
person classes due to a natural disaster or other causes. DHS has also
clarified in the final rule that extenuating circumstances include
students needing to change schools to complete elementary or secondary
education.
In addition, an alien who has completed a program as an F-1
nonimmigrant at one educational level will be unable to maintain F-1
status, depart and be admitted in F-1 status, or otherwise obtain F-1
status (e.g., via a change of status) through a program at the same
educational level or a lower educational level. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(ii)(C). However, an F-1 student who has completed a program
in the United States at one educational level and is beginning a new
program at a higher educational level will be considered to be
maintaining F-1 status if they otherwise comply with requirements under
8 CFR 214.2(f). See new 8 CFR 214.2 (f)(5)(ii)(B). These provisions
were retained from the NPRM to the final rule. They will be applied
prospectively. Any programs completed prior to the effective date of
the rule will not be counted towards the limits.\321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\321\ For example, an F-1 student who completed a master's
degree prior to the effective date of the rule would be eligible to
enroll in and be admitted for the completion of another master's
degree. Any programs completed after the effective date of the rule
would be counted towards the new limits of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS believes that it is reasonable for a student to progress to a
higher educational level rather than continue at the same level or
pursue a lower level of education, as that is the traditional
trajectory in the pursuit of higher education. Movement within the same
level after completion of a program to a lower educational level raises
concerns regarding whether the F-1 student is a bona fide student who
intends to temporarily and solely pursue a full course of study rather
than pursuing different degrees as a de facto way to prolong their stay
in the United States.
If an F-1 student who has completed their first academic year of a
program of study seeks to change educational objectives and this change
would require an EOS, the alien would then apply for EOS using the form
designated by USCIS, paying the required fee and following all form
instructions, including submitting any biometrics required by 8 CFR
103.16. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(D).
DHS recognized that these changes might require updates to SEVIS
and other systems. Because the timeframe for those updates is not fixed
and there could be technical issues regarding implementation, DHS is
including a provision whereby DHS may delay or suspend implementation,
in its discretion, if it determines that the change in educational
level limitation is inoperable for any reason. The need for this
provision is not indefinite and therefore DHS has added language in the
regulatory text to clarify that this provision can be used for up to
two years from the effective date of the rule (i.e., September 14,
2028). See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(E). If DHS delays or suspends the
provisions in this section governing the change in educational
objectives, DHS will make an
[[Page 45105]]
announcement of the delay or suspension by notice in the Federal
Register and to the academic community through SEVP's various
communication channels, including ICE.gov/sevis, Study in the States
(https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov), and SEVIS Broadcast Message. DHS
will also announce the implementation dates of the change in degree
level provision through SEVP's communication channels (ICE.gov/sevis,
Study in the States, and SEVIS Broadcast Message) at least 30 calendar
days in advance.
Additionally, DHS is retaining the term ``educational'' with
respect to a change in level as DHS believes it accurately reflects
current academic models. Specifically, ``educational'' captures
programs for non-degree students, whereas using a term such as
``degree'' may not. For example, an F-1 student currently will not
qualify for additional post-completion OPT if he or she changes to a
non-degree certificate program, given that the certificate program is
not a ``higher educational level.'' Similarly, certificate programs for
professional advancement are typically not considered to be a ``higher
educational level'' allowing students to qualify for additional post-
completion OPT.
DHS believes these changes will encourage F-1 students to complete
the programs of study for which they were admitted to the United States
and to only pursue additional programs of study that demonstrate an
upward progression in degree levels, which is expected from a qualified
bona fide student who is coming to the United States temporarily and
solely to pursue a course of study. DHS believes that this restriction
will not significantly impact the choice of bona fide students who come
to the United States temporarily to complete a full course of study.
The F-1 program, with its statutory requirement that an alien be a bona
fide student who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and
solely for the purpose of pursuing a full course of study at the school
listed on his or her Form I-20 or successor form, should not be used by
aliens wishing to remain in the United States indefinitely. These
changes will better ensure that this statutory intent is fulfilled
without hindering the options presented to bona fide students seeking
study at higher educational levels and thus create a balanced solution
to this issue.
3. Preparation for Departure
DHS retains its proposal from the NPRM to change the departure
period for F nonimmigrants from 60 to 30 days. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(v). DHS received comments on this change, and those
comments are discussed elsewhere in this preamble. DHS made this change
for several reasons as discussed in the NPRM. The 60 days previously
provided to F-1s to prepare for departure was twice as long as that of
other SEVP programs (M and J nonimmigrants). See new 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(ii) and 8 CFR 214.2(m)(10)(i). In addition, this 60-day
period is also six times longer than certain nonimmigrants who are
authorized to remain in the United States for years but are only
provided with a 10-day period to depart the United States.
As discussed within the NPRM, DHS believes that 30 days for the F
nonimmigrant population is the appropriate balance between a 60-day and
a 10-day period of departure and has retained the proposed 30-day
departure period for F-1 nonimmigrants in the final rule.\322\
Similarly, DHS notes that seeking an EOS or change of status is an
allowable activity for F-1 nonimmigrants during the 30-day departure
period following the completion of their program and incorporated this
clarification in the proposed rule and retains it in the final rule.
See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ 90 FR at 42089 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS has also retained its proposal to clarify that an F-1 student
who has completed a course of study and any authorized practical
training will be allowed an additional 30day departure period which is
reflected in the AUD on the Form I-94 (or successor form), or the
expiration date noted on the EAD (Form I-766 or successor form) plus
the 30-day departure period, as applicable, to prepare for departure
from the United States, or to otherwise maintain status, including
timely filing an EOS application in accordance with 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)
and 8 CFR 214.1 or to timely file a change of status application in
accordance with 8 CFR 248.1(a). See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v). DHS
removed the reference to completing a course of study or a program in
order to provide consistency in the admission of all F-1 and J-1
nonimmigrants and to allow the departure period to be reflected in I-94
at admission, so that the F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants will have a
unambiguous end date of their period of authorized admission, easily
referenced on the I-94. USCIS, when adjudicating applications for a
change of status to F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrant status and EOS
applications of F-1 and J-1 status will similarly provide I-797
approval notices reflecting the 30-day departure period following the
program end date or the 4-year maximum period of admission, or period
of OPT or STEM OPT, as applicable.
In the final rule, DHS added a clarifying sentence to address
situations where F-1 students end their study or training early. For
example, an F-1 student may enter their program anticipating it will
take 4 years to complete, but they may then complete that program in 3
years. Or an F-1 student may enter their program anticipating it will
take 4 years to complete, but they may stop their studies completely
after one semester. When an F-1 student ends their study or training
early, that student, and any eligible dependents, must, within 30 days
from the new end date, depart the United States or otherwise seek to
maintain lawful status. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v).
Since an F-1 student now has 30 days, rather than the previously
allotted 60 days, to depart the country or to otherwise maintain status
after their completion of their program or program end date, it follows
that they need to file a Form I-765 or successor form for post-
completion OPT within 30 days, rather than the previously allotted 60
days, after their program end date. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(11)(i)(B)(2). This has been retained in the final rule.
It similarly follows that a student may not request a start date of
OPT employment which is more than 30 days (rather than 60 days) after
the student's program end date. DHS overlooked this update to 8 CFR
214.2(f)(11)(i)(D) in the NPRM but has made the change in the final
rule. As explained in the response to comments above, DHS recognizes
failing to make this update may cause confusion. This technical change
aligns with the 30-day period that was proposed in the NPRM under 8 CFR
214.2(f)(11)(i)(B)(2) and with the 30-day period of preparation for
departure under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v).
In the NPRM, DHS also proposed retaining the current regulatory
language that allows a 15-day period for departure from the United
States if an alien is authorized by the DSO to withdraw from classes,
but no additional time for departure if the alien fails to maintain a
full course of study without the approval of the DSO or otherwise fails
to maintain status. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v). Because DSOs
generally authorize withdrawal based on compelling academic or medical
circumstances when a student proactively requests permission, DHS
believes retaining the 15-day period is appropriate and has retained
this provision in the final rule. However, aliens who fail to maintain
their full course of study, are denied EOS, or
[[Page 45106]]
otherwise violate their status are required to immediately depart the
United States, as is consistent with other nonimmigrant
classifications. DHS considered allowing a short ``grace period'' for
departure after an EOS denial but concluded there was not a compelling
reason to treat F nonimmigrants who have received a denial more
favorably than other nonimmigrant classifications. As in other
nonimmigrant classifications, failure to immediately depart under these
circumstances may result in accrual of unlawful presence and subject
the individual to removal.
4. Automatic Extension of Authorized Period of Stay and Employment
a. Authorized Period of Stay and Employment Authorization Under 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(viii)
Each year, a number of U.S. employers seek to employ F-1 students
and file a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, with USCIS,
along with a change of status request, to obtain classification of the
F-1 student as an H-1B nonimmigrant worker. The H-1B nonimmigrant visa
program allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in
specialty occupations, defined by statute as occupations that require
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly
specialized knowledge and a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific
specialty, or its equivalent. See INA sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and
214(i); 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and 1184(i). The H-1B
classification, however, is subject to annual numerical allocations,
commonly referred to as a ``cap.'' See INA sections 214(g)(1)(A) and
(g)(5)(C); 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A) and (g)(5)(C).\323\ For purposes of
the H-1B numerical allocations, each fiscal year begins on October 1.
Petitioners may not file H-1B petitions more than 6 months before the
date of actual need for the employee.\324\ Thus, the earliest date an
H-1B cap-subject petition may be filed for an allocation for a given
fiscal year is April 1, 6 months prior to the start of the applicable
fiscal year for which initial H-1B classification is sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\323\ Under INA 214(g)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A), 65,000
aliens may be issued H-1B visas or otherwise provided H-1B
nonimmigrant status in a fiscal year. This limitation does not apply
to aliens who have earned a master's or higher degree from a U.S.
institution of higher education, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1001(a),
until the number of aliens who are exempted from such numerical
limitation during such year exceeds 20,000. INA 214(g)(5)(C), 8
U.S.C. 1184(g)(5)(C).
\324\ See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many F-1 students complete a program of study or post-completion
OPT in mid-spring or early summer. Per existing regulations, after
completing their program or post-completion OPT, F-1 students have 60
days (which DHS is proposing to change to 30 days) to take the steps
necessary to maintain legal status or depart the United States. See new
8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v). However, because the change to H-1B status cannot
occur until October 1, an F-1 student whose program or post-completion
OPT expires in mid-spring has two or more months following the 60-day
period before the authorized period of H-1B status can commence. To
address this situation, commonly known as the ``cap-gap,'' DHS
established regulations that automatically extended F-1 D/S and, if
applicable, post-completion OPT employment authorization for certain F-
1 nonimmigrants until April 1 of the fiscal year for which the H-1B
status is being requested or until the validity start date of the
approved petition, whichever is earlier. See redesignated 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(vii). The extension of F-1 D/S and OPT employment
authorization is commonly known as the ``cap-gap extension.'' This rule
does not change the ``cap-gap extension'' provisions; it simply removes
the reference to D/S and makes clear that an automatic extension will
be granted to those with a fixed period of stay.
b. F-1 Status and Authorized Employment While EOS and/or Employment
Authorization Applications Are Pending
DHS struck ``duration of status'' from redesignated 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(vii) in the proposed rule and clarified that an alien with
F-1 status whose admission period as indicated on his or her I-94 has
expired, but who has timely filed an EOS application, will be
authorized to continue pursuing a full course of study after the end
date of his or her admission until USCIS adjudicates the EOS
application. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii). This change allows for
ongoing authorization to continue studies as long as the student has
timely filed his or her EOS and will not penalize students if USCIS is
unable to adjudicate an EOS application before a student's new term or
course of study is underway. In such cases, students will be able to
continue pursuing their full course of study.\325\ This change is
retained in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\325\ However, if the extension of stay application is received
during the 30-day period under new paragraph 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v),
the F-1 student is authorized to continue a full course of study but
may not continue or begin engaging in practical training or other
employment. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS did clarify the title of new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii) in the
final rule, since the automatic extension is for the authorized period
of stay while the EOS is adjudicated, rather than an automatic EOS. The
title changed from ``Automatic Extension of F stay and employment
authorization. . .'' to ``Automatic extension of the authorized period
of stay and employment authorization. . .''
The shift to a fixed date of admission has implications for various
types of employment authorization. Prior to the effective date of this
final rule, DSOs could authorize certain types of employment
authorization, including on-campus employment and CPT,\326\ and
students generally did not need to be concerned about a specific
expiration date for their student status, and thus their employment
authorization, because they were admitted for D/S. This rule changes
that framework with different implications for various types of
employment authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\326\ See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)-(12), 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For on-campus employment where no EAD is needed, DHS is allowing
aliens in F-1 status to continue to be authorized for on-campus
employment while their EOS applications with USCIS are pending, not to
exceed a period of 240 days.\327\ See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii). If
the EOS application is still pending after 240 days have passed, the F-
1 student will no longer be authorized for employment and will need to
stop engaging in on-campus employment. DHS is allowing a 240-day
automatic extension period in order to minimize disruptions to on-
campus employment by teaching assistants, post-graduates working on
research projects, and other positions that are integral to an F-1
student's educational program. Note that the 240 days start after the
expiration of one's current stay. DHS has always encouraged and will
continue to encourage all nonimmigrants to apply for EOS within
[[Page 45107]]
the six months \328\ preceding the expiration of their current
authorized stay thereby providing an additional buffer against any
disruption of the ability to work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\327\ See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i) for a description of on-campus
employment. For on-campus employment that is based on severe
economic hardship resulting from emergent circumstances pursuant to
redesignated 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vi), see later discussion for
additional restrictions. The EOS application must be timely filed
pursuant to the new paragraph at 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iii)(B).
Moreover, if an F-1 student files an extension of stay application
during the 30-day period provided in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v)(new), he
or she does not receive an automatic extension of authorized
employment, including on-campus, CPT, and severe economic hardship,
and must wait for approval of the extension of stay application (and
employment authorization application, if required) before engaging
in CPT or employment. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii).
\328\ With respect to the earliest filing date for a Form I-539,
there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain date
ahead of expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, DHS is allowing an automatic extension of off-campus
employment authorization for up to 240-days during the pendency of the
EOS application, for F-1 students who have demonstrated severe economic
hardship pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(C) and previously received
an EAD from USCIS that expired at the program end date that is now
being extended with the EOS application. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(viii). These circumstances may include loss of financial
aid or on-campus employment without fault on the part of the student,
substantial fluctuations in the value of currency or exchange rate,
inordinate increases in tuition and/or living costs, unexpected changes
in the financial condition of the student's source of support, medical
bills, or other substantial and unexpected expenses. In such cases, DHS
believes a 240-day automatic extension of employment authorization will
help alleviate the severe economic hardship and avoid a disruption in
their employment, especially given the fact that an EAD is required and
the frequency at which these students must submit an application for
employment authorization.\329\ Additionally, given that USCIS's average
EAD processing time is typically 60-120 days for foreign students and
90-120 for most others, a 240-day timeframe provides sufficient
flexibility in case of unexpected delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(3). 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(F)(2)
provides that employment authorization based upon severe economic
hardship may be granted in one-year intervals up to the expected
date of completion of the student's current course of study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For F-1 students granted off-campus employment authorization on the
basis of severe economic hardship resulting from emergent circumstances
pursuant to redesignated 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vi), DHS proposed, and is
retaining in the final rule, an automatic extension of such employment
authorization with a different validity period than the general 8 CFR
214.2(f)(9)(ii)(C) severe economic hardship employment authorization
extension described above while their EOS applications are pending. See
new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii). This will codify USCIS's current policy
which states USCIS may grant SSR employment authorization for the
duration of the Federal Register notice validity period, but the period
of authorization may not exceed the F-1 student's academic program end
date.\330\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\330\ See generally USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 2, Part F, Chap.
6, Employment, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-f-chapter-6 (last visited Feb. 4, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As first promulgated in 1998, the SSR regulations provide necessary
flexibility to address unforeseeable emergencies by allowing DHS, by
notice in the Federal Register, to suspend the applicability of some or
all of the requirements for on- and off-campus employment authorization
for specified F-1 students where an emergency situation has arisen
calling for this action. These F-1 students must continue to attend
classes but are allowed to take a reduced course load. By regulation,
aliens approved for SSR to take at least 6 semester or quarter hours of
instruction at the undergraduate level or 3 semester or quarter hours
of instruction at the graduate level. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v).
Failure to take the required credits could be considered a failure to
maintain F-1 status. The SSR regulations are announced by notice in the
Federal Register, and such employment may only be undertaken during the
validity period of the SSR notice.
Due to the shift to a fixed admission period, DHS proposed to
provide an automatic extension of SSR-based employment so aliens'
ability to benefit from this long-standing regulatory relief is not
interrupted by USCIS processing times. This change is consistent with
current USCIS policy, which allows for SSR employment authorization to
be granted for the duration of the Federal Register notice validity
period, so long as the period of authorization may not exceed the F-1
student's academic program end date. It is also consistent with
existing practice for certain nonimmigrants who require an EAD.\331\
This is retained in the final rule. Further, DHS has retained its
proposal to automatically extend SSR authorization if an F-1 student
has a timely-filed EOS pending for up to the end date stated in the
Federal Register notice announcing the suspension of certain
requirements, or 240 days, whichever is earlier. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\331\ See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)-(12), 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As evidence of these automatic extensions of employment
authorization, DHS will allow the F-1 student's I-94 (or successor
form) or EAD (Form I-766, or successor form), for F-1 nonimmigrants
requiring an EAD, when combined with a notice issued by USCIS
indicating receipt of a timely filed EOS application (such as the Form
I-797),\332\ to be considered unexpired until USCIS issues a decision
on the EOS application, not to exceed 240 days. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(viii). SSR-based employment authorization that has been
automatically extended can be evidenced by the F-1 student's EAD and
the receipt notice issued by USCIS (the Form I-797), not to exceed the
lesser of 240 days or the end date stated in the Federal Register
notice announcing the suspension of certain requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\332\ However, if an F-1 student files an extension of stay
application during the 30-day period provided in new paragraph 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(v), he or she does not receive an automatic extension of
authorized employment, including on-campus, CPT, and severe economic
hardship, and must wait for approval of the extension of stay
application (and employment authorization application, if required)
before engaging in CPT or employment. 214.2(f)(5)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. New Process for EOS Application
Under current regulations, F-1 students may obtain a program
extension from a DSO as long as they are maintaining status and making
normal progress toward the completion of their educational objectives.
See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(i) and (iii). The problem with the ``normal
progress'' standard is that it is undefined, and DHS believes that
retaining it could lead to inconsistent adjudications. Even now, the
lack of a standard definition for normal progress leads DSOs to
inconsistently extend F-1 students' program end dates and thus their
stay in the United States. Some DSOs use a strict standard, evaluating,
for example, documentation to support a student's claim of a compelling
medical condition or illness that serves as the basis for the student's
request for extension of the student's current program. However, other
DSOs claim that the student is making ``normal progress'' whenever a
student simply needs more time to complete the program. This
inconsistency results in some students being able to remain in F-1
status for years simply by having the DSO update the Form I-20 without
providing a justification as to how the student is making ``normal
progress'' and what academic or medical circumstances necessitate the
extension of the program.
Therefore, DHS proposed not to use a ``normal progress'' standard
with respect to seeking a program extension, and to require, in
addition to the requirement that the applicant obtain a Form I-20 from
the DSO recommending extension of the program, the applicant will be
required to file an EOS
[[Page 45108]]
application to request additional time to complete their current course
of study beyond their authorized period of admission. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(i). This change is retained in the final rule.
Apart from pursuing a new course of study, DHS appreciates that the
time for study can legitimately fluctuate given the changing goals and
actions of the student. For example, a student may experience
compelling academic or medical reasons, or circumstances beyond their
control that cause them to need additional time in the United States
beyond the predetermined end date of the program in which they were
initially enrolled. DHS understands these circumstances arise and
believes these scenarios present an appropriate situation for DHS to
directly evaluate the nonimmigrant's eligibility for additional time in
the United States. However, instead of effectively extending their stay
through a DSO's program extension recommendation in SEVIS, students
will have to obtain a Form I-20 from the DSO recommending a program
extension and apply to USCIS for an EOS. Immigration officers thereby
will be able to conduct appropriate background and security checks on
the applicant at the time of the EOS application and directly review
the proffered evidence to ensure that the alien is eligible for the
requested EOS, including through assessing whether the alien remains
admissible. See 8 CFR 214.1(a)(3)(i). This extra step is necessary
because an immigration officer will be able to see a more fulsome
picture while considering the student's particular circumstances, and
be able to identify potential fraud and criminality, thereby ensuring
public safety and program integrity.
In these circumstances, DHS will only extend the stay beyond the
program end date of an otherwise eligible F-1 student requesting
additional time to complete their program if the additional time needed
is due to a compelling academic reason, documented medical illness or
medical condition, or circumstance that was beyond the student's
control. As with all nonimmigrant EOS requests, an alien seeking an EOS
generally must have continually maintained status.\333\ If an F-1
student dropped below a full course of study, that drop must have been
properly authorized. F-1 students seeking extensions of stay must
primarily be seeking to temporarily stay in the United States solely to
pursue a full course of study, INA section 101(a)(15)(F)(i), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F)(i), and not for other reasons separate from, or in
addition to, pursuing a full course of study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\333\ Failure to file on or before the expiration of the
previously accorded status or failure to maintain such status may be
excused at the discretion of USCIS if the alien demonstrates that at
the time of filing: the delay was due to extraordinary circumstances
beyond the control of the applicant, and USCIS finds the delay
commensurate with the circumstances, the alien has not otherwise
violated his or her status, and is not subject to deportation. See 8
CFR 214.1(c)(3)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an F-1 student were to violate the terms of his or her F-1
status, the F-1 student would need to apply to USCIS for reinstatement,
consistent with 8 CFR 214.2(f)(16). If a student is reinstated and his
or her admit until date expires within 6 months, but the student is
unable to complete his or her program of study within that time, then
the F-1 student also would need to apply to USCIS for an EOS. In that
scenario, the F-1 student would need to make separate requests for
reinstatement and for EOS by submitting a separate form for each
request, including the required filing fee for each form, by marking
reinstatement on one form and then EOS on the other. Both forms can
then be submitted together at the same time to avoid unnecessary
adjudication delays. In the event both forms are submitted together,
and the F-1 student's application to reinstate student status is
denied, his or her application for EOS would also be denied, with both
filing fees being retained by USCIS and not refunded.
By way of illustration, a student with a fixed date of admission
may request an additional 4 months to complete his or her program
because the student was authorized to drop below a full course of study
for one semester due to illness. Prior to the effective date of this
final rule, the student would need to request an updated Form I-20 from
the DSO recommending a program extension. Now, consistent with the
proposal in the NPRM, an immigration officer could review the proffered
evidence and ensure that the claim is supported by documentation from a
medical doctor. Conversely, a student may request an EOS for additional
time to complete an associate program but fail to submit evidence they
were properly authorized to drop below a full course of study. The
immigration officer has discretion to request transcripts from the
student. If a student's transcripts reflect that the student failed
multiple classes one semester, an immigration officer could determine
if the student has failed to maintain status due to a failure to carry
a full course of study as required. In another example, a student could
submit an EOS request to continue in the same program because he or she
was unable to take all the required classes for his or her major due to
over-enrollment at the school. Again, an officer could request
additional information, if needed, to determine that the student was
maintaining a full course of study (or, if not, was properly authorized
to reduce his or her course load), but due to the school's high
enrollment, the student may validly require an additional semester to
complete the degree requirements in order to graduate.
Therefore, DHS proposed to eliminate a reference to ``normal
progress'' with respect to seeking a program extension, and incorporate
a new standard clarifying that acceptable reasons for requesting an
extension of a stay for additional time to complete a program are: (1)
compelling academic reasons; (2) a documented illness or medical
condition; or (3) exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the
alien. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(i)(C).\334\ These provisions are
retained in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\334\ DHS did not propose to update the term ``normal progress''
as defined in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(E). The provision at 8 CFR
214.2(f)(6)(i)(E) relates to study at an approved private elementary
or middle school or public or private academic high school. In that
context, it is clear that ``normal progress'' is the completion of
the academic year (for example, 6th grade).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first two factors are based on the current regulatory
provisions for program extension, 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iii), from the 2025
text (e.g., changes of major or research topics, and unexpected
research problems). DHS proposed to clarify that, in addition to
academic probation and suspension, a student's repeated inability or
unwillingness to complete his or her course of study, as demonstrated
by a pattern of failing classes and requesting multiple program
extension, is not an acceptable reason to request an EOS for additional
time to complete a program. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(i)(C)(1). This is
also retained in the final rule.
DHS expects bona fide students to be committed to their studies,
attending classes as required, carrying a full course of study, and
making reasonable efforts toward program completion. Repeatedly failing
classes demonstrates that the student is not making reasonable efforts
toward completing his or her program of study. Therefore, a student who
has a pattern of failing classes that has resulted in multiple program
extensions would not be qualified for an EOS. The prohibition against
requesting an EOS would not include students, such as those who,
pursuant to DHS regulations, are making normal progress toward
completing their program of study and still may not complete the
program within 4 years
[[Page 45109]]
due to the standard timeline and requirements for the program. Absent
such factors as being placed on academic probation or suspension, or
repeatedly failing classes, these students would be eligible for
extension based upon compelling academic reasons. This prohibition also
does not include cases where the DSO properly authorized the student to
drop below a full course of study as well as cases in which the status
has been reinstated following a loss of status. In such case, the
student is eligible for reinstatement if the reduced course load was
within the DSO's power to authorize. A student would be expected to
provide evidence demonstrating the compelling academic reason in order
for the DSO to recommend a program extension. The student may then
apply for an EOS. While a letter from the student may be sufficient to
meet his or her burden of proof, an immigration officer will evaluate
the individual case and make the determination as to whether additional
evidence (such as a letter from a member of the school administration
or faculty) is needed to adjudicate the case.
DHS also proposed to clarify that a student can qualify for a
program extension and corresponding EOS based on a documented illness
or medical condition. To provide an objective standard, DHS proposed to
codify standards already included in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(iii)(B), which
requires a student to provide medical documentation from a licensed
medical doctor, licensed doctor of osteopathy, licensed psychologist,
or licensed clinical psychologist to substantiate the illness or
medical condition if seeking a reduced course load. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(i)(C)(2). This is retained in the final rule. As this is
already a long-standing requirement for DSOs and students in a similar
context, DHS believes this will be appropriate and easy to implement in
the program extension and corresponding EOS process. Further, requiring
applicants to provide documentation of their medical illness or medical
condition that caused their program delay is a reasonable request,
because they are asking DHS to provide them additional time in the
United States.
DHS also proposed a new factor in the EOS provisions--circumstances
beyond the student's control, including a natural disaster, a national
health crisis, or the closure of an institution. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(i)(C)(2)(iii). This is retained in the final rule. As in
the reinstatement context, DHS believes that there might be additional
reasons beyond compelling academic or documented medical reasons that
result in a student's inability to meet the program end date listed on
the Form I-20.
Therefore, DHS proposed a third prong that encompasses scenarios
that are not envisioned in the current provisions governing the
extension of a program end date, such as those noted above. Some
scenarios are currently in the reinstatement provisions, 8 CFR
214.2(f)(16)(i)(F), such as natural disasters, pandemics, and the
negligence of a DSO, and DHS believes that they merit favorable
consideration in extension requests moving forward. Other scenarios may
present circumstances that require a more intensive, fact-specific
analysis and may fall into this proposed third prong. For example, the
circumstances surrounding the closure of a school may be considered in
determining whether the student qualifies for an EOS. By way of
illustration, if a school closes as a result of a criminal conviction
of its owners for engaging in student visa fraud by not requiring
students to attend, but the student is unable to demonstrate that he or
she was attending classes prior to closure as required to fulfill a
full course of study, the closure of the institution might not qualify
the student for a program extension. In contrast, if a school closes
but a student is able to demonstrate that he or she was attending
classes and was fulfilling all requirements to otherwise remain in
status, the closure of the institute may qualify the student for a
program extension.
The requirements to timely request an extension of the program end
date would remain largely unchanged; however, DHS proposed a technical
change to replace all references to the DSO ``granting'' an extension
of the program with the term ``recommend'' an extension of the program
in order for the student to file for EOS because USCIS, not the DSO,
would ``grant'' the EOS. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(ii). This is
retained in the final rule. For example, a student may not necessarily
be granted an EOS by USCIS if an adjudicator determines the student has
not actually maintained status or does not actually have compelling
academic or documented medical reasons for the delay, despite the DSO's
recommendation for program extension.
Where the alien requests a recommendation to extend the program end
date, the DSO could only make a recommendation to extend the program if
the alien requested the extension before the program end date noted on
the most recent Form I-20, or successor form. Additionally, consistent
with changes throughout this rule, once the DSO recommends the
extension of the program, the alien would need to timely file for an
EOS on the form and in the manner designated by USCIS, with the
required fees and in accordance with the filing instructions, including
any biometrics required by 8 CFR 103.16 and a valid, properly endorsed
Form I-20 or successor form, showing the new program end date barring
extraordinary circumstances. See 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4) and new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(ii) and (f)(7)(iii). This is retained in the final rule.
If seeking an EOS to engage in any type of practical training, the
alien in F-1 status will also need to have a valid Form I-20, properly
endorsed for practical training, and be eligible to receive the
specific type of practical training requested. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(v). This is retained in the final rule. Finally, as with
all immigration benefit requests, an immigration officer will generally
not grant an EOS where an alien in F-1 status failed to maintain his or
her status.
Finally, a student's failure to timely request, from the DSO, a
recommendation for extension of the program end date prior to
expiration of the student's authorized stay, which would result in the
DSO recommending an extension of the program end date in SEVIS after
the end date noted on the most recent Form I-20 or successor form, will
require the alien to file for a reinstatement of F-1 status, because
the alien will have failed to maintain status and will be ineligible
for an EOS. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(viii). A request for
reinstatement must be filed in the manner and on the form designated by
USCIS, with the required fee, including any biometrics required by 8
CFR 103.16. DHS is also requiring F-2 dependents seeking to accompany
the F-1 principal student to file applications for an EOS or
reinstatement, as applicable. These requirements are consistent with
current provisions.
With the transition from D/S to admission for a fixed time period,
F-1 students will need to apply for an EOS directly with USCIS, by
submitting the appropriate form and following the requirements outlined
in the form instructions. USCIS anticipates accepting the Form I-539,
Application to Change/Extend Nonimmigrant Status, for this population
but would like the flexibility to use a new form if more efficient or
responsive to workload needs. Thus, DHS is retaining its proposal to
use general language to account for a possible change in form in
[[Page 45110]]
the future. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iii)(A). If the form ever
changes, USCIS would provide stakeholder's advance notice on its web
page and comply with Paperwork Reduction Act requirements.
Like all other aliens who file a Form I-539, F-1 applicants may be
required to submit biometrics and may be required to appear for an
interview pursuant to 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). In addition, applicants will
need to demonstrate that they are eligible for the nonimmigrant
classification sought. Accordingly, applicants must submit evidence of
sufficient funds to cover expenses. A failure to provide such evidence
will render the applicant ineligible for the EOS. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(ii).
While the sponsoring school is required to verify the availability
of financial support before issuing the Form I-20, they may not be
well-versed in foreign documentation submitted by applicants and
circumstances may change between the issuance of a Form I-20 and a
request for an EOS. Further, it is incumbent upon DHS to determine the
veracity of the evidence submitted, and officers must ensure that the
student has sufficient funds to study in the United States without
resorting to unauthorized employment. The phrase ``sufficient funds to
cover expenses'' is referred to in existing DoS regulations concerning
issuance of F and M nonimmigrant student visas, 22 CFR 41.61(b)(1)(ii),
and current DoS policy requires an applicant to provide documentary
evidence that sufficient funds are, or will be, available to defray all
expenses during the entire period of anticipated study.\335\ While this
does not mean that the applicant must have cash immediately available
to cover the entire period of intended study, which may last several
years, the applicant must demonstrate enough readily available funds to
meet all expenses for the first year of study and that additional funds
will be available for the duration of the intended period of
study.\336\ DHS believes requiring evidence of readily available
financial resources to cover expenses for one year of study is
reasonable given that F students are familiar with this requirement
because this is the standard used by the DoS in the issuance of F
nonimmigrant visas. DHS also considers that this standard is
appropriate because it establishes concrete resources for one full
academic year of the program. Further, applicants must demonstrate
that, barring unforeseen circumstances, adequate funds will be
available for each subsequent year of study from the same source or
from one or more other specifically identified and reliable financial
sources. Such evidence for one year and subsequent years could include,
but is not limited to: complete copies of detailed financial account
statements for each account intended to be used to fund the student's
education; other immediately available cash assets; receipts and/or a
letter from the school accounts office indicating tuition payments
already made and any outstanding account balance; affidavits of support
from a sponsor; proof of authorized private student loans; \337\ and/or
other financial documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\335\ See 9 FAM 402.5-5(G), Adequate Financial Resources,
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040205.html (last updated Aug.
15, 2024).
\336\ Id.
\337\ Federal student loans are only available to U.S. citizens
and permanent residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F-1 applicants will generally need to timely file their EOS
application--meaning that USCIS will need to receive the application on
or before the date the authorized admission period expires. See new 8
CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iii)(B). This application timeframe for timely filing
an EOS application will include the 30-day period of preparation for
departure allowed after the completion of studies or any authorized
practical training. However, if the extension application is received
during the 30-day period of preparation for departure provided in 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(v) following the completion of studies, the alien in F-1
status may continue studying but may not continue or begin engaging in
practical training or other employment until the extension request is
approved and, as applicable, an EAD is issued. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(7)(iii)(B). To avoid this scenario, DHS continues to encourage
nonimmigrants to file their EOS applications within the six months
\338\ preceding the expiration of their stay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\338\ With respect to the earliest filing date for a Form I-539,
there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain date
ahead of expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The length of the extension granted could be up to the period of
time needed to complete the program or requested practical training,
not to exceed 4 years, unless the alien is a border commuter, enrolled
in language training, or attending a public high school. By permitting
admission only ``up to'' the prescribed period, USCIS and CBP are
afforded discretion as to the ultimate length of time to grant the
applicant and consider factors such as program length.
F-2 dependents seeking to accompany the F-1 principal student will
need to file applications for an EOS or reinstatement, as applicable.
See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iv). A dependent F-2 spouse and unmarried
children under the age of 21 seeking to accompany the principal F-1
student during the additional period of admission will need to either
be included on the primary applicant's request for extension or
properly file their own EOS applications on the form designated by
USCIS. If the dependent files a separate Form I-539, he or she will
need to pay a separate Form I-539 filing fee. However, if the dependent
files a Form I-539A as part of the primary applicant's EOS request on a
Form I-539, only one fee will be required.
USCIS generally will need to receive the extension applications on
or before the expiration of the previously authorized period of
admission, including the 30-day period following the completion of the
course of study, as indicated on the F-2 dependent's I-94. To qualify
for an EOS, the F-2 dependent will need to demonstrate the qualifying
relationship with the principal F-1 student who is maintaining status,
also be maintaining his or her own status, and not have engaged in any
unauthorized employment. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(iv). Extensions of
stay for F-2 dependents will not be able to exceed the authorized
admission period of the principal F-1 student. By removing D/S for
family members, DHS is ensuring that a spouse who engaged in
unauthorized employment would be denied EOSs and must return home. As
with other nonimmigrant classifications, if a dependent is aging out
before the program end date listed on the I-20, the entire family,
including the J-1 principal, will receive an EOS only until the F-2's
21st birthday, which will then require the remaining family members and
the principal F-1 student to apply for an EOS for the remainder of the
program and for the aged out F-2 to leave the country or change status
to a different nonimmigrant category.
Under new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(vii), if USCIS denies the request for
an extension, and the period of admission for the student and his or
her dependents has expired, then the student and his or her dependents
will need to immediately depart the United States. As with other
nonimmigrant classifications, they will not be given any period of time
to prepare for departure from the United States after the denial, and
there may be significant immigration consequences for failing to depart
the country immediately. For example, such aliens generally will begin
to accrue unlawful presence the day after the issuance of the denial.
DHS
[[Page 45111]]
believes this standard provides parity across nonimmigrant
classifications.
6. School Transfers and Changes in Educational Objectives
The proposed rule discussed several examples of fraudulent ``pay-
to-stay'' schemes in which students were falsely reported as
maintaining status in return for cash payments to DSOs.\339\
Furthermore, the D/S framework has enabled some aliens to become
``professional students'' who spend years enrolled in programs at the
same educational level (for example, multiple associate degree
programs) or complete programs at one educational level and enroll in
lower educational levels (such as completing a master's degree and then
enrolling in an associate program).\340\ While admission for a fixed
time period will help to address these concerns, DHS proposed
limitations on program changes within and between educational levels to
further strengthen the integrity of the F nonimmigrant visa
classification by better ensuring that aliens are in the United States
primarily to study, rather than to reside permanently in the United
States. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(i). The final rule retains this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\339\ 90 FR at 42094-95 (Aug. 28, 2025).
\340\ DHS analysis of data in SEVIS and valid as of May 7, 2025,
and June 2, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS also proposed to retain some of the current school transfer and
change of educational level conditions. First, as is the case
currently, aliens would need to begin classes at the transfer school or
program within 5 months of transferring out of the current school or
within 5 months of the program completion date on his or her current
Form I-20; and second, if the alien is authorized to engage in post-
completion or STEM OPT, he or she must be able to begin or resume
classes within 5 months of transferring out of the school that
recommended OPT or the date the OPT authorization ends, whichever is
earlier. This is retained in this final rule, although, as compared the
NPRM, the regulatory text in the final rule replaces the statement that
the F-1 student ``must be able to resume classes within 5 months. . .''
with the F-1 student ``must be able to begin or resume classes within 5
months . . .''. See new CFR 214.2(f)(8)(i)(G) and (H).
DHS retained the current provisions at 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(i),
rendering aliens who do not pursue a full course of study ineligible to
change programs or transfer schools, and clarifying that failure to
pursue a full course of study includes, but is not limited to, a
student whose pattern of behavior demonstrates a repeated inability or
unwillingness to complete his or her course of study. Just as delays
caused by unacceptable patterns of behavior, academic probation or
suspension are not acceptable reasons for program extensions and
corresponding EOS of a student's current program, neither are they an
acceptable reason for failing to carry a full course load. Such aliens
will have failed to maintain F status, are ineligible for a change of
program and school transfers and will be required to file for a
reinstatement of status, if eligible. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(i).
To complete a transfer, an F-1 student must first notify the
student's current school (the ``transfer-out school'') of the intent to
transfer and indicate the school to which the student intends to
transfer (the ``transfer-in school''). Upon notification by the
student, the transfer-out school will update the student's record in
SEVIS as a ``transfer-out'' and indicate the transfer-in school and a
release date. The release date will be the current semester or session
completion date, or the date of expected transfer if earlier than the
completion date of the established academic cycle. The transfer-out
school will retain control over the student's record in SEVIS until the
student completes the current term or reaches a release date, whichever
is earlier. At the request of the student, the DSO of the current
school may cancel the transfer request at any time prior to the release
date. As of the release date specified by the current DSO, the
transfer-in school will be granted full access to the student's SEVIS
record and will then become responsible for that student. The student
should then obtain a valid Form I-20 or successor form from the
transfer-in school. This language is consistent with the proposal in
the NPRM, but has minor clarifying edits. See new 8 CFR
214.2(f)(8)(ii).
DHS has also retained this proposal to clarify to the public that a
change to a higher education level can be accomplished in accordance
with the transfer procedures outlined in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(ii). See new
8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(iii).
Finally, DHS proposed technical updates. If the new program to
which the student changes or transfers will not be completed within the
authorized admission period established in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i), then,
consistent with the other provisions throughout this rule, the F-1
student must apply for EOS in the manner and on the form designated by
USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance with form instructions,
together with a valid, properly endorsed Form I-20 indicating the new
program end date, and would need to provide biometrics as authorized by
8 CFR 103.16, if required. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(iv).
7. Border Commuter Students
DHS struck the sentence referencing how ``duration of status'' is
inapplicable to border commuter students because DHS is eliminating D/S
for all F nonimmigrants. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(18)(iii). This is
retained in the final rule.
G. Requirements for Admission, Extension, and Maintenance of Status of
J Exchange Visitors
1. Initial Admission Period and Period of Stay
a. Principal Applicants
The revisions to the J regulations at 8 CFR closely align with the
changes for F nonimmigrants. Under new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1), J exchange
visitors will be able to receive an initial period of admission not to
exceed the program end date as stated on the Form DS-2019, up to a
period of 4 years. The NPRM provided the existing permissible initial
time periods for J program categories (as opposed to the periods of
admission) and noted that extensions are possible with DoS approval for
all categories.\341\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\ 90 FR at 42095 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the F classification, many J exchange visitors are admitted
to participate in programs shorter than 4 years. Some J exchange
visitors, like most F nonimmigrants, enter as post-secondary students.
Similar to the F-1 Ph.D. student, some J nonimmigrants, i.e., alien
physicians and professors or research scholars, may need to stay longer
than a 4-year period to complete their J program. However, all
categories of J nonimmigrants will be covered by the same 4-year period
as for F nonimmigrants. As such, DHS strives to treat these similarly
situated nonimmigrants in a consistent manner by providing them with
the same maximum admission period. DHS is implementing the same 4-year
maximum period of admission. See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii)(A). This
will help ensure compliance by providing consistency between the J
program and the F program, which have programmatic similarities in that
both go through the SEVIS system and need approval by their respective
DSOs or ROs for exchanges and changes.
DHS is retaining the 30-day period that J nonimmigrants are
provided before the report date or start of the approved program listed
on the DS-
[[Page 45112]]
2019 and the 30-day period for preparation for departure. As DHS
expects these nonimmigrants to use the 30-day period of time after the
program ends to prepare for departure, DHS revised the language
currently in 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii) that reads, ``period of 30 days for
the purposes of travel or for the period designated by the Commissioner
. . .,'' to instead read ``a period of 30 days from the program end
date or the 4-year maximum period of admission, whichever is earlier,
for the purposes of departure or to otherwise seek to maintain lawful
status.'' See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii)(C). DHS believes that the
language more accurately reflects the purpose of the period at the end
of the program and accounts for other ways J exchange visitors may seek
to maintain status during this period, such as by filing an EOS or
change of status application. As explained in the context of F-1s
above, DHS proposes changes to clarify that all J-1 nonimmigrants will
be allowed the 30-day departure period following their program end date
or the 4-year maximum period of admission.
b. Dependents
Consistent with the EOS eligibility requirements for J-1
nonimmigrants found at 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4), DHS codified the policy that
extensions for spouses or children who are granted J-2 status based on
their derivative relationship as a spouse or child of the principal J-1
nonimmigrant may not exceed the period of authorized admission of the
principal J-1. The authorized period of initial admission for J-2
dependents is subject to the same requirements as the J-1 exchange
visitor and may not exceed the period of authorized admission of the
principal J-1 exchange visitor. See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii)(B).
2. EOS
The shift from D/S to admission for a fixed time period will mean
that J nonimmigrants wishing to remain in the United States beyond
their authorized period of stay will need to file for an EOS with
USCIS. Like other nonimmigrants applying for EOS, they will need to
file an EOS application on the form and in the manner designated by
USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance with filing
instructions, including any biometrics required by 8 CFR 103.16. See
new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv)(A). J-1 nonimmigrants seeking a program
extension will continue to first request such an extension through the
RO, as provided for under existing regulations.\342\ If such a program
extension is recommended by the RO and approved by DoS, if necessary,
the J-1 must apply for an EOS with USCIS to remain in the U.S. beyond
the status expiration date on their I-94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\342\ See 22 CFR 62.43, describing J-1 program extension
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are times when an exchange visitor's program status becomes
inactive prior to program completion, which would result in the RO
recommending a reinstatement of J-1 status to include an extension of
the program beyond the end date noted on the most recent Form DS-2019
or successor form.\343\ A request for reinstatement must be filed in
the manner and timeframe required by DoS. Once the record is corrected
or reinstated, the J-1 exchange visitor must submit a request for an
EOS to USCIS within 30 days of the status update. This process is
clarified and corrected in this final rule in response to comments. See
new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\343\ One example is when a sponsor issues the Form DS-2019 for
one year at a time for exchange visitors on multi-year programs.
Prior to the end of the first year, the sponsor should have
submitted an extension prior to the Program End Date but failed to
do so and now must submit a Reinstatement. If approved, the request
will change the status of the exchange visitor from Inactive to
Active and extend the Program End Date for another year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A dependent J-2 spouse and children seeking to accompany the J-1
exchange visitor in eligible J-1 categories during the additional
period of admission will either need to be included on the primary
applicant's request for extension or file their own EOS applications on
the form designated by USCIS and may be required to provide biometrics
consistent with 8 CFR 103.16. See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv)(E). If a J-
1 exchange visitor is denied EOS, then the J-2 family members will also
be denied EOS, and all will be required to leave the United States
immediately. However, a J-2 family member also can be denied EOS for
other reasons, including due to criminal activity or not maintaining
his or her status, for example, by working when not authorized, and
will be required to depart the United States, but the J-1 and other J-2
dependents will be allowed to remain in the United States if EOS is
approved for them.
As with other nonimmigrant classifications, the period of stay for
J-2 dependents cannot exceed the period of stay authorized for the
principal J-1 exchange visitor, including any EOS granted. And, as with
other nonimmigrant classifications, if a dependent is aging out before
the program end date listed on the DS-2019, the entire family,
including the J-1 principal, will receive an EOS only until the J-2's
21st birthday, which will then require the remaining family members and
the principal J-1 to apply for an EOS for the remainder of the program
and for the aged out J-2 to leave the country or change status to a
different nonimmigrant category. Also, as with other nonimmigrant
classifications, if an EOS request is denied, the aliens will need to
immediately depart the United States once their authorized period of
stay expires.
3. Employment and Pending EOS and Employment Authorization Applications
Like I nonimmigrants, J-1 exchange visitors in some categories are
authorized to engage in employment incident to status.\344\ This means
that they are authorized to work per the terms of their program, and
they do not have to apply to USCIS for authorization to engage in
employment. As in the past, if an alien's J-1 status has expired, but
he or she timely filed an EOS application, DHS is allowing the alien to
continue engaging in activities consistent with the terms and
conditions of the alien's program, including any employment
authorization, beginning on the day after the admission period expires,
for up to 240 days. See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(vii)(A) and 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20). DHS is also allowing an alien whose J-1 status has
expired but who timely filed an EOS application on or before 6 months
after the effective date of the final rule (or longer if extended by
DHS by publication of a notice in the Federal Register), to engage in
J-1 activities, including authorized training and employment, as
permitted by the alien's exchange visitor program, while the EOS
application is pending with USCIS, for the period up to the program end
date on the DS-2019 (or successor form) filed with the pending
application. Such authorization is subject to any conditions and
limitations of the initial authorization. See new 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(vii). This policy is consistent with current practice and
prevents J-1 exchange visitors from being penalized on
[[Page 45113]]
account of USCIS processing times, allows the alien to participate in
the program without interruption, and, as applicable, prevents
disruption to U.S. institutions employing or otherwise relying on the
alien. The final rule clarifies the language in 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(vii)(A) to more explicitly discuss the employment
authorization discussed in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\344\ See 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J) (including teaching,
instructing, lecturing, and consulting among the permissible
activities of nonimmigrants in the J category for participation in
programs authorized by DoS); 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(v) (discussing
employment authorization for J exchange visitors); 22 CFR 62.16
(stating that an exchange visitor program participant may receive
compensation ``when employment activities are part of the exchange
visitor's program'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the alien's initial date of admission passes, DHS will consider
the alien's I-94 unexpired when combined with a USCIS receipt notice
indicating receipt of a timely filed EOS application and a valid,
properly endorsed Form DS-2019 indicating his or her program's end
date. An EOS application will be considered timely filed if the date on
the receipt notice for the application of EOS is on or before the date
the authorized stay expires. The extension of an alien's employment
authorization will terminate on the date of denial of an individual's
application for an EOS. See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv)(E). DHS believes
that such provision will clarify how exchange visitors will demonstrate
authorization to continue engaging in employment authorized pursuant to
their program and better facilitate employer compliance with I-9
employment verification requirements.
Unlike J-1 exchange visitors, J-2 spouses and eligible children may
only engage in employment with authorization by USCIS. See new 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(v) and 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(5). DHS retained the current
restriction on the J-2 dependent's income described in 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(v)(A); the J-2 nonimmigrant's income may be used to support
the family's customary recreational and cultural activities and related
travel, among other things, but not to support the J-1. See new 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(v).
Consistent with current regulatory requirements, if a J-2 dependent
wants to engage in employment, he or she will need to file an
application for employment authorization, in the manner designated by
USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance with form instructions.
If a J-2 dependent nonimmigrant's requested period of employment
authorization exceeds his or her current admission period, the J-2
dependent will need to file an EOS application or be included as part
of the J-1 principal's EOS application, in the manner designated by
USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance with form instructions.
The validity of the J-2 dependent's employment authorization may not
exceed the authorized admission period granted to the J-2 dependent
pursuant to the EOS application. See new 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(iv)(A),
(j)(1)(v), and (j)(1)(vii)(C).
As noted above in the discussion concerning EOS applications for F
nonimmigrants, DHS considered but declined to adopt a policy that will
result in abandonment of the EOS application upon traveling outside the
United States while the EOS is pending. A J-1 or J-2 alien who travels
during the time the EOS is pending may not be considered to have
abandoned the EOS application. See new 8 CFR 214.1(c)(8).
DHS will allow J-1 nonimmigrants to continue employment or
authorized training while an EOS application is pending with USCIS.
Specifically, J-1s who have properly filed an EOS on or before March
18, 2027, may engage in the activities consistent with pursuing the
terms and conditions of the exchange program objectives, including
authorized training, while the EOS is pending, up to the DS-2019 end
date filed with the EOS application. If a J-1 nonimmigrant's EOS is
still pending upon the end date of the DS-2019 filed with the EOS
application, and the J-1 obtains a program extension from the sponsor
and/or DoS, as applicable, the alien may continue engaging in
activities consistent with the exchange program objectives, including
authorized training, so long as the EOS application is pending, and he
or she has filed a subsequent EOS request with an end date beyond the
DS-2019 end date requested in the preceding EOS request. In the future,
the date which is initially March 18, 2027 period may be extended, if
DHS determines such an extension is necessary. See new 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(vii).
Finally, DHS made minor technical updates. First, in new 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(vi), DHS struck the reference to ``duration of status,''
and updated references to the ``Commissioner'' to refer to USCIS, while
also replacing the title with `Automatic Extension of J-1 authorized
period of stay and grant of employment authorization for aliens who are
the beneficiaries of a cap-subject H-1B petition' to eliminate the
prior reference to D/S and to provide more details on the paragraph.
This title differs slightly from what was proposed in the NPRM in order
to include better clarity with the contents of the paragraph. Second,
because 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(vii) is being revised to describe J
nonimmigrants with pending EOS applications and their employment
authorization, it is necessary to revise and reassign current 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(vii) and (viii) to 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(viii) and (ix)
respectively. Third, DHS made conforming amendments to the provision
which requires exchange visitors to report legal changes to their name
and any changes in their address, replacing the term `Service' with
`USCIS' and clarifying the number of days during which changes need to
be reported by revising from 10 days to 10 `calendar' days for exchange
visitors to report changes in their names and addresses and from 21
days to 10 business days for the RO to update SEVIS, in order to
conform with existing DoS regulations.\345\ See new 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(ix). This change is made because the differing number of
days for ROs to report changes between DHS and DoS regulations may
cause confusion given that the time frames are both regarding the
requirement for ROs to update changes in SEVIS, and this change
provides for a common timeframe. In that same provision, DHS struck the
sentence which references non-SEVIS programs, as SEVIS enrollment is
now a mandatory requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\345\ 22 CFR 62.10(d)(3) clarifies that the J-1 exchange visitor
must inform the RO or ARO of address changes within ``10 calendar
days'' of the change, and 22 CFR 62.10(d)(4) states that the
reporting window for ROs or AROs to update SEVIS is ``10 business
days'' from receiving the J-1 exchange visitor's address change
notification from the J-1 exchange visitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Requirements for Admission, Extension, and Maintenance of Status of
I Nonimmigrants
1. Definition of Foreign Media Organization
The NPRM proposed several changes affecting the I nonimmigrant
classification. First, DHS proposed to define a foreign media
organization as ``an organization engaged in the regular gathering,
production, or dissemination via print, radio, television, internet
distribution, or other media, of journalistic information and has a
home office in a foreign country.'' See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(1) and the
accompanying discussion in the NPRM.\346\ This definition clarifies the
long-standing interpretation of ``foreign information media'' as
``journalistic information.'' The definition is retained in this final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\346\ 90 FR at 42097-98 and 42112 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Evidence
In order to be granted I classification, an alien will need to meet
his or her burden of proof to establish eligibility for admission in
that nonimmigrant classification. DHS did not change the current
requirement that an alien must demonstrate that the foreign media
organization that they represent has a home office in a foreign
country, and that the home office will continue to
[[Page 45114]]
operate in the foreign country while the alien is in the United States.
See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(2)(i), which is unchanged from the NPRM. A self-
employed applicant will need to demonstrate that he or she intends to
depart the United States within a reasonable time frame consistent with
the intended purpose of travel in order to maintain the home office in
another country.
Further, the alien applying for I nonimmigrant status must provide
a letter from the employing foreign media organization or, if self-
employed or freelancing, an attestation from the alien, that verifies
the employment, establishes that the alien is a representative of that
media organization, and describes the remuneration and work to be
performed. See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(2)(ii), which is unchanged from
current practice. This provides a standard basis for DHS to evaluate
whether the applicant intends to comply with the I classification and
only engage in the regular gathering, production or dissemination via
print, radio, television, internet distribution or other media of
journalistic information and represents, as an employee or under
contract, an organization with an office in a foreign country. For
example, such a letter can describe the content that the foreign
information media representative is covering in the United States,
which must be primarily journalistic information in nature, such as the
reporting on recent or important events, investigative reporting, or
producing educational materials, such as documentaries. Foreign media
organizations would be able to describe how the content is primarily
designed to provide information rather than entertainment, such as
scripted or contrived situations, such as most ``reality television''
shows, which do not qualify an individual for admission under the I
nonimmigrant classification.\347\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\347\ For more information about what qualifies as `journalistic
information' see 9 FAM 402.11-3, Definitions of ``Information Media
Representative'' and ``Journalistic Information,'' https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040211.html (last updated Apr. 22,
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Admission Period and EOS
Consistent with the NPRM, aliens in I nonimmigrant classification
(except for I nonimmigrants from the PRC) will have admission periods
not to exceed 240 days or the period of time necessary to complete
their activities, whichever is shorter. See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(3)(i).
Further, an I nonimmigrant (except for I nonimmigrants from the PRC)
``may be eligible for extensions of stay, each of up to 240 days or
until the activities or assignment consistent with the I classification
are completed, whichever is shorter.'' See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5)(i)(A).
For, I nonimmigrants presenting passports from the PRC (other than a
Hong Kong SAR passport or Macau SAR passport) would be given admission
and EOS of up to 90 days or until the activities or assignments
consistent with the I classification are completed, whichever is
shorter, and may apply for an EOS. See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(3)(ii) and
214.2(i)(5)(iii). In each instance of applying for an EOS, the I
nonimmigrant must demonstrate planned work activities consistent with
the I classification to justify the additional time sought. See new 8
CFR 214.2(i)(5). These provisions were all proposed in the NPRM, and
DHS is retaining them in the final rule.
I nonimmigrants who file a Form I-539 request with USCIS to request
a change in information medium are currently allowed an automatic
extension of employment authorization with the same employer while a
Form I-539 application is pending for a period not to exceed 240 days,
8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), DHS believes it is appropriate to extend such
period of time to most other I nonimmigrant contexts. As stated in new
8 CFR 214.2(i)(5), an I nonimmigrant may continue activities consistent
with the I classification while the timely application for EOS is
pending, as provided for in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), for a period not to
exceed 240 days or the actual additional time requested on the EOS
application, whichever is shorter (with the exception of an I
nonimmigrant submitting a passport from the PRC, except Hong Kong SAR
and Macau SAR, who can request extensions of up to 90 days), and
beginning on the date of the expiration of the authorized period of
stay.
In the event that the EOS application remains pending at the end of
this period (the 240 day auto-extension or 90 days for certain aliens
from the PRC), the I nonimmigrant, whose status has expired, may remain
in the United States so long as the EOS application is pending, and he
or she has filed a subsequent EOS request to remain beyond the period
requested in the preceding EOS request. The alien, however, must cease
working until his or her initial/preceding EOS application is approved,
and USCIS may deny an EOS application if it finds that the alien did
not cease working. See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5)(i) and (iii). DHS retained
these provisions in the final rule. This restriction is consistent with
current regulation and practice for other nonimmigrant worker
classifications. Specifically, 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20) permits certain
classes of aliens to continue employment with the same employer for a
period of time not to exceed 240 days. The nonimmigrant may
alternatively choose to depart the United States and apply for a new
period of admission with CBP at a port of entry. The nonimmigrant would
be eligible to work immediately upon re-entry.
As noted above, an I nonimmigrant may file multiple, consecutive
extension requests. Each extension request, however, must conform to
the current requirements outlined in new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5) and 8 CFR
214.2(c)(4) that the request be timely filed, and that an alien file
his or her EOS while the alien maintains his or her previously accorded
lawful status or prior to the expiration of his or her status.\348\
Thus, under new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5) and 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4), if an EOS
remains pending and the alien needs to continue working in the United
States beyond the time period requested in that particular EOS
application, then he or she must file a second EOS application before
the date (240 days or 90 days for certain I nonimmigrant with a
passport from the PRC (excluding Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR passport
holders) or the actual time period requested, whichever is shorter),
when the preceding EOS request would have expired. When multiple,
timely filed consecutive EOS applications are necessary, the alien is
required to cease work activities as described above because the
preceding EOS application(s) remain pending; the filing of a subsequent
EOS application does not confer authorization to continue work
activities until the preceding EOS application(s) are approved. Upon
approval of an EOS and all preceding EOS application(s), the alien may
resume work activities for the period of time remaining on the latest
EOS request. At any time, the denial of an extension application
requires the alien to cease work activities and depart the United
States immediately. See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(6). As with other
nonimmigrant classifications, they will not be given any period of time
to prepare for departure from the United States after the denial, and
there may be significant immigration consequences for failing to depart
the country immediately. For example, such aliens generally will begin
to accrue unlawful presence the day after the issuance of
[[Page 45115]]
the denial. DHS believes this standard provides parity across
nonimmigrant classifications. As with other nonimmigrant
classifications, DHS encourages nonimmigrants to apply for EOS within
the six months \349\ (90 days for passport holders from the PRC)
preceding the expiration of their current authorized stay to avoid
losing the ability to work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\348\ Current DHS regulations allow for USCIS, in its
discretion, to excuse an alien's failure to file before the period
of previously authorized status expired where the alien is able to
demonstrate that certain circumstances apply to him or her: See
generally 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4).
\349\ With respect to the earliest filing date for a Form I-539,
there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain date
ahead of expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, DHS retained the proposed amendments to 8 CFR
214.2(i)(5)(ii), to clarify that the dependents of an I nonimmigrant
may be eligible for an EOS, under the same conditions and subject to
the same restrictions as the principal I nonimmigrant. DHS also added
regulatory text at 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5)(iv), clarifying the meaning of
``timely filing'' in the context of these I EOS applications.
4. Change in Information Medium or Employer
The proposed rule continued the preexisting requirement in the
regulations that aliens in I nonimmigrant status may not change the
information medium or the employer they will be working with until they
receive permission from USCIS. See new 8 CFR 214.2(i)(4). As noted in
the proposed rule, aliens currently submit Form I-539, Application to
Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, for this purpose. This provision
remains unchanged in the final rule.
I. Change of Status
The final rule retains, unchanged, the two provisions added to 8
CFR part 248, which governs changes of status. In the first provision,
DHS clarified that aliens who were granted a change to F or J status,
before the effective date of the final rule, and are applying for
admission as an F or J after the final rule's effective date may be
admitted up to the program end date as noted on the Form I-20 or DS-
2019 not to exceed 4 years, plus a period of 30 days following their
program end date, to prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to
obtain lawful authorization to remain in the United States. See new 8
CFR 248.1(e). CBP may admit these aliens into the United States up to
the program end date, on the Form I-20 or DS-2019 that accompanied the
approved change of status prior to the alien's departure, plus an
additional 30 days, thus ensuring that they do not get more time than
allocated by their program end date, since these F and J nonimmigrants
would have received an admission period for D/S on the I-94 that
accompanied the change of status approval.
The second provision, retained in the final rule, codifies the
long-standing policy that, when an alien timely files an application to
change to another nonimmigrant status, including F or J status, but
departs the United States while the application is pending, USCIS will
consider the application abandoned. Under section 248 of the INA, DHS
may authorize a change of status to a nonimmigrant who, among other
things, continues to maintain his or her status. Thus, pursuant to a
policy that has been in place for decades, the change of status
application of an alien who travels outside of the United States during
the pendency of his or her request for a change of status is deemed
abandoned. See new 8 CFR 248.1(f). Note, however, if there is an
underlying petition filed along with the change of status, the petition
may still be approved, but the alien generally would have to obtain the
necessary visa at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad before applying
for admission to the United States in the new nonimmigrant
classification.
J. Classes of Aliens Authorized To Accept Employment
DHS made the following updates to regulations pertaining to
employment authorization: First, DHS struck the reference to D/S and
updated the reference to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vi) in 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(6)(v). Second, in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(10), DHS cross referenced
language in 8 CFR 214.2(i) for I nonimmigrants, which clarifies that
limitations currently in the provision (stating that an alien in this
status may be employed only for the sponsoring foreign news agency or
bureau) allow for freelance and self-employment situations where the I
nonimmigrant may not have a ``sponsoring'' foreign news agency or
bureau, and instead will need to show, among other requirements
indicated in 8 CFR 214.2(i), that they are working for a qualifying
foreign media organization.
K. Severability
In the event a provision in the section is not implemented, DHS has
added severability clauses to ensure that the remaining provisions be
implemented as an independent rule. The changes impact provisions that
are not necessarily interrelated and can function independent of one
another. As such, the Departments believe that most of the provisions
of this final rule can function sensibly and independently of other
provisions. Therefore, in the event that any provisions in this rule
are invalidated by a reviewing court, the Departments intend the
remaining provisions to remain in effect to the fullest extent
possible. See new 8 CFR 214.2(f)(20), (j)(6), and (i)(8). These are
retained in the final rule.
VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
DHS developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. The following sections
summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive
orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, harmonizing
rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly
reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations and provides that ``any new incremental costs associated
with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset
by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior
regulations.''
This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action''
that is economically significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because
it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of
the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or
interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in
INA 101(a)(17), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) or any other function performed
by the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens. See OMB
Memorandum M-25-20, ``Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive
Order 14192, titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation' ''
(Mar. 26, 2025).
DHS provides a summary of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of
the economic impacts below. For the full
[[Page 45116]]
analysis, please see the RIA posted in the docket of this rule on
regulations.gov.
Under the final rule changes, DHS would more frequently have
opportunities to review and collect nonimmigrant information, enhancing
the Government's oversight and monitoring of these aliens, resulting in
costs and benefits. Over a 10-year period of analysis, DHS estimates
the final rule would have annualized costs ranging from $443.1 million
to $448.6 million (using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively)
when considering both U.S. and non-U.S. parties. When considering U.S.
parties only, DHS estimates that annualized costs would range from
$119.9 million to $125.1 million (using 3 and 7 percent discount rates,
respectively).
Need for the Rule
The final rule would ensure an effective mechanism for DHS to
periodically and directly assess whether these nonimmigrants are
complying with the conditions of their classifications and U.S.
immigration laws, as well as allow DHS to obtain timely and accurate
information about the activities they have engaged in and plan to
engage in during their temporary stay in the United States. The
opportunity to assess the nonimmigrant status with timely and accurate
information allows immigration officers to verify that the
nonimmigrants have not obtained any criminal convictions and do not
pose a threat to national security. In addition, as F, J, and I
nonimmigrants would be admitted for a fixed period of admission under
the final rule, they would generally begin to accrue unlawful presence
following the expiration of their authorized period of admission, as
noted on the Form I-94 (Arrival/Departure Record issued at the POE, and
could potentially become inadmissible based on that accrual of unlawful
presence under INA section 212(a)(9)(B) and (C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)
and (C), upon departing the United States. These grounds of
inadmissibility have important and far-reaching implications on an
alien's future eligibility for a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa,
admission to the United States, or adjustment of status to that of a
lawful permanent resident. Therefore, these regulatory changes may
deter F, J, and I nonimmigrants from failing to maintain status and
deter them from engaging in fraud and abuse. By increasing DHS
assessments and clarifying when unlawful presence accrual begins, the
final rule would strengthen the integrity of these nonimmigrant
classifications.
Affected Population
The final rule would impact F, J, and I nonimmigrants, DSOs and ROs
from SEVP-certified schools and exchange visitor sponsors that run a
SEVP- or DoS-designated program and foreign media representatives.
Overall, approximately 2.1 million persons participated annually in the
F, J, and I nonimmigrant programs combined. DHS estimated the 3-year
average active nonimmigrants based on data from fiscal years 2022 to
2024. Active nonimmigrants are those present in the United States with
a valid visa. Over the 3-year period, there were approximately 1.6
million F nonimmigrants, 504,000 J nonimmigrants, and 24,000 I
nonimmigrants active per year.
The number of nonimmigrant EOS requests under the proposed rule
depends on the unique circumstances of each nonimmigrant visa holder.
For example, in situations when the nonimmigrant intends to extend
their stay in the United States in furtherance of their academic
training and following the proposed regulatory criteria for their visa
and program, they would be expected to file an EOS. Therefore, DHS
estimates the number of EOS requests over the 10-year analysis period
based on the historical nonimmigrant data and criteria from the
proposed regulatory provisions. Further, DHS accounts for the proposed
transition period in the estimated number of EOS requests. DHS utilized
event-based data to have more accurate estimations of the probability
that nonimmigrants would take certain actions that require an EOS
request. This allowed DHS to estimate the number of EOS requests based
on how nonimmigrants act during their stay. Based on the historical
data, regulatory criteria, and the transition period assumptions, DHS
estimates an annual average of 393,500; 28,000; 6,000 EOS requests for
F, J, and I nonimmigrants, respectively, over the ten-year period of
analysis.
Costs
DHS recognizes that the final rule would incur costs. Some of the
costs have been quantified based on available data, and the remaining
costs are qualitative.
Quantitative Costs
Depending on each nonimmigrant's need to extend his or her stay in
the United States, nonimmigrants on an F-1, F-2, J-1, J-2 and I visa
would incur costs to request an EOS. The cost burden includes
application fees and time for filing Form I-539 or I-539A. DHS assumes
a percentage of nonimmigrants would incur costs for additional help
filing their request for EOS. DHS estimates the annualized EOS costs
for the nonimmigrants would range from $317.9 million to $317.3 million
(using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively).
DHS also calculated a familiarization cost for nonimmigrants
expected to be in the country when the rule goes into effect. This 1
hour of burden, which is an advising burden to meet with their DSOs and
ROs, resulted in an additional year 1 cost of $45.6 million to $43.9
million (using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively).
Further, DSOs and ROs would incur a burden for assisting additional
EOS requests resulting from this final rule. When a nonimmigrant is or
would be employed under OPT or CPT, DHS assumes HR staff would incur
burden per EOS request to track form updates and avoid inadvertent
unauthorized employment due to form discrepancies with the Form I-9.
DHS estimates the annualized EOS costs for the DSOs and ROs, and HR
staff would range from $88.5 million to $88.3 million (using 3 and 7
percent discount rates, respectively).
Additionally, DHS assumes DSOs and ROs would incur costs to
familiarize themselves with the rule and to create and modify training
materials, and other adaptations such as system wide briefings,
systemic changes, and advising of current nonimmigrants of the rule
changes. For the final rule, DHS updated the familiarization costs to
135 hours per DSO and RO based on public comments received. DHS also
added 1 hour of advising burden to DSO, ROs and current nonimmigrants
subject to this rule to account for the transition between the old and
new rule. The 1 hour advising burden to nonimmigrants resulted in an
additional cost of $45.6 million to $43.9 million (using 3 and 7
percent discount rates, respectively). DHS estimates the
familiarization and adaptation and advising costs in year 1 to DSOs and
ROs would range from $267.9 million to $257.8 million (using 3 and 7
percent discount rates, respectively).
Qualitative Costs
DHS acknowledges there could be other costs that the Department was
not able to quantify and discusses these in the following section.
Generally, DHS lacked data and information to quantify the qualitative
costs below.
Federal Government Costs
DHS acknowledges there will be implementation and operational costs
to the government associated with
[[Page 45117]]
assessing aliens at the POE for purposes of authorizing an admission
period of up to 4 years. CBP officers will need training on new systems
and procedures for conducting inspections at the POE consistent with
the final requirements on setting a period of admission for F, J, or I
nonimmigrants. DHS also acknowledges that there could be additional
costs to the government to upgrade SEVIS and provide additional support
services to implement the final rule. DHS anticipates there may be
costs for SEVIS development, supplemental Federal staff to assist in
the development, increased call center volume, and operation and
maintenance of SEVIS databases and other DHS IT systems. DHS
acknowledges that this rule will require efforts to update systems and
train officers. However, these system updates will not incur additional
costs, as the updates for SEVIS are part of regular software updates
and incorporated within the budget allocations into current financial
and resource allocations for SEVIS operations and maintenance.
Furthermore, ADIS does not require any additional costs for new
software updates as a direct result of the D/S rule. Training costs are
similarly expected and incorporated within the overall training budget
allocations and incur no additional cost to the U.S. taxpayer. The
training for compliance with the rule will be part of regular training
and training budgets and cannot be separated as a distinct cost.
Costs to Schools and Enrollments
The global market for nonimmigrant students is competitive and many
U.S. schools hold an advantage over foreign institutions due to the
quality of the programs they offer, however the final rule may have an
impact on nonimmigrant student enrollment. The final rule affects only
those F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants who need additional time to complete
their program or who wish to continue their education; however, DHS
maintains that eligible students should have no difficulty with getting
their EOS requests approved, which should alleviate concerns about the
uncertainty of EOS approval. Schools may also incur costs for changes
to their information systems and practices to implement processing
under the proposed rule.
DHS expects this final rule will affect relatively few English
language programs; the majority of ELT students were enrolled in
programs shorter than 2 years. Some schools may choose to change their
curriculum to be covered in a 2-year time period. It is possible that
some language training programs would experience reduced enrollment due
to the final rule.
DHS does not intend for the rule to have a significant impact on
participation of other J exchange visitors or I foreign information
media representatives. Equivalent U.S.-based exchange visitor programs
(outside of academia) may be more difficult to find in other countries,
providing less of an incentive for nonimmigrants to choose an
alternative.
Benefits
DHS expects this final rule to have qualitative benefits for
national security by providing DHS additional opportunities to evaluate
whether F, J, and I nonimmigrants are complying with their status
requirements, or if they present a national security concern. It would
deter fraud and abuse of the F, J, and I visa classifications, as
requiring EOS requests at frequent intervals allow DHS to review the
standing of the nonimmigrant. DHS would be able to enforce the unlawful
presence provisions of the INA for those who are not complying with the
terms of their visa status.
Accounting Statement
DHS has prepared a full analysis according to E.O. 12866 and E.O.
13563, which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking or by
searching for RIN 1653-AA95 on www.regulations.gov. Table 1 presents
the accounting statement as required by Circular A-4 for total impacts
of the rule. The proposed rule would have a quantified annualized cost
ranging from $443.1 million to $448.6 million (with 3- and 7-percent
discount rates, respectively) when considering U.S. and non-U.S.
parties. When considering U.S. parties only, annual costs would range
from $119.9 million to $125.1 million (with 3- and 7-percent discount
rates, respectively).
Table 1--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement, U.S. and Non-U.S. Parties
[2024$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 3-Percent discount rate 7-Percent discount rate Source citation (RIA, preamble, etc.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
Annualized Monetized $millions/year.... N/A N/A N/A.
Annualized Quantified.................. N/A N/A N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative............................ Enhance DHS's ability to enforce the unlawful Preamble, RIA Section A.4.
presence provisions of the INA at the conclusion of F,
J, and I nonimmigrants' fixed period of admission.
Deter F, J, and I nonimmigrants from engaging
in fraud and abuse and strengthen the integrity of
these nonimmigrant classifications.
Provide DHS with additional information to
promptly detect national security concerns.
Increase DHS's ability to detect those
nonimmigrants who are not complying with the terms and
conditions of their status.
Ensure that immigration officers, who are
U.S. Government officials, are responsible for
reviewing and deciding each F, J, or I nonimmigrant's
extension of stay (EOS) request.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Annualized Monetized $millions/year.... $443.1 $448.6 RIA Section A.4.
Annualized Quantified.................. N/A N/A N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45118]]
Qualitative............................ Potential burden for DHS and nonimmigrants RIA Section A.4.
associated with government requests for additional
information or in-person interviews.
Potential reduction in enrollment of
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors and
subsequent revenue effects on sponsoring institutions.
DHS costs for rule familiarization and
training and additional steps at port of entries
(POEs) to assess fixed periods of time for admission.
Potential burden to schools/program sponsors
and DHS to update batch processing systems that
facilitate exchange of data between Designated School
Officials (DSOs)/Responsible Officers (ROs) and the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS).
Potential costs to F-1 students and schools
stemming from limitations on change of education level
procedures.
Potential burden on F-1 English language
training (ELT) program students and schools from the
restriction against ELT study beyond 24 months.
Some Employment Authorization Documents
(EADs) may lapse or may not be approved if EOS
requests are not approved in a timely manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers:
Annualized Monetized $millions/year.... N/A N/A N/A.
Annualized Quantified.................. N/A N/A N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative............................ Potential reduction in fees collected by Student and RIA A.4.
Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) and Department of
State (DoS) to cover the respective program costs due
to a potential reduction in international enrollment.
State, Local, and/or Tribal Government. Some public schools will incur incremental costs to RIA A.4.
comply with the final rule and a potential decline in
international enrollment.
Small Business......................... Some small businesses will incur incremental costs to Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
comply with the final rule.
Wages.................................. N/A. N/A.
Growth................................. N/A. N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during
rulemaking. The term ``small entities'' is comprised of small business,
not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated
and are not dominant in their fields and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000. DHS has prepared a full initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), which can be found in the
docket for this rulemaking or by searching for RIN 1653-AA95 on
www.regulations.gov. A summary of the final regulatory flexibility
analysis (FRFA) follows.
DHS performed an FRFA of the impacts on small entities from this
rule in the first year of the analysis and found that it may affect an
estimated 7,744 U.S. entities (6,541 SEVP-certified institutions
(schools), and 1,203 J exchange visitor program sponsors). DHS analyzed
all the entities that would be affected by the rule and DHS found that
78 percent of SEVP-certified institutions and 62 percent of J exchange
visitor program sponsors would be considered small entities.
Under the final rule, DSOs and ROs will have to spend approximately
135 hours for rule familiarization and adaptation in the first year
after the rule takes effect. For each DSO, rule familiarization would
cost $6,735 in the first year after the rule takes effect. Further,
each year DSOs/ROs will spend approximately 3 hours per F-1/J-1 EOS
request to review the Form I-539 completed by the F-1/J-1 nonimmigrant,
update the SEVIS record and track EOS requests, and advise the F-1/J-1
nonimmigrant about the extension process and the requirements to file
an EOS with USCIS. DHS also accounted for additional advising costs for
each F school when the rule takes effect by multiplying the school-
level average annual enrollment by a cost of $50 per existing F-1
student (1 hour x $49.89 loaded wage rate). Additionally, HR staff will
spend approximately 1.5 hours per F-1 EOS request to track form updates
related to each EOS request and avoid inadvertent unauthorized
employment due to form discrepancies with the I-9. The DSO cost per EOS
request is $233.
DHS estimates that 73.4 percent of small schools will experience an
impact less than or equal to one percent of their annual revenue. DHS
estimates that the majority of small J sponsors would experience an
impact less than or equal to one percent of their annual revenue.
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
[[Page 45119]]
121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this final rule
so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in
the rulemaking. If the final rule will affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult ICE
using the contact information provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above.
D. Congressional Review Act
This final rule is a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, also
known as the ``Congressional Review Act,'' as enacted in section 251 of
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public
Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 868 et seq. Accordingly, this rule, if
enacted as a final rule, will be effective at least 60 days after the
date on which Congress receives a report submitted by DHS under the
Congressional Review Act, or 60 days after the final rule's
publication, whichever is later.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among
other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates on state, local, and tribal governments. Title II of UMRA
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule
that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The value
equivalent of $100 million in 1995 adjusted for inflation to 2024
levels by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers is $193
million. This rule exceeds the $100 million expenditure threshold in
the first year of implementation (adjusted for inflation) and therefore
DHS is providing this UMRA analysis.
1. An Identification of the Provision of Federal Law Under Which the
Rule Is Being Promulgated
The authority of the Secretary for these regulatory amendments is
found in various sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat.
2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq. The Authority sections for 8 CFR parts 214,
248, and 274a provide a detailed list of the specific authorities.
General authority for issuing the final rule is found in section 103(a)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the Secretary to
administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws. Further
authority for the regulatory amendments in the final rule is found in
Section III, Subpart A.
2. A Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of the Anticipated Costs
and Benefits of the Federal Mandate, Including the Costs and Benefits
to State, Local, and Tribal Governments or the Private Sector, as Well
as the Effect of the Federal Mandate on Health, Safety, and the Natural
Environment
The affected population of the rule are the F, J, and I visa
holders, and the educational institutions and sponsors responsible for
the visa holders. The major costs associated with this rule are the
familiarization and advising burden incurred in year 1, EOS filing
costs for visa holders, and DSO/RO burden for assisting with EOS
requests. The familiarization and advising burden applies to the full
population, however in different amounts. The DSOs/ROs are expected to
take on more familiarization burden as they are expected to advise the
F and J nonimmigrants. The DSO/RO burden for EOS requests will be borne
by the educational institutions and sponsors, while the EOS filing
costs will be borne by the visa holders. Familiarization costs are only
accrued in the first year, and the advising burden for educational
institutions and sponsors responsible for F and J visa holders is
scaled to the number of F and J visa holders. Institutions that choose
to engage with large numbers of F and J visa holders will incur more
costs related to familiarization and adaptation. These familiarization
and adaptation costs are expected to decrease after first year the rule
is in effect. Educational institutions and sponsors will only accrue
EOS processing costs if they enroll nonimmigrants who remain in the
country beyond their program length or 4 years, whichever is shorter.
Nonimmigrants who remain in the country for their allotted program
length (if less than 4 years) or 4 years will not be required to file
an EOS request, and not incur costs related to this rule. Only the visa
holders filing EOS requests will incur these costs. DHS presents the
impacts of these provisions more fully in the RIA, which is available
in the docket for this final rule on www.regulations.gov.
DHS does not believe that this rule will have any impact on health
or safety. The impact of this rule on environmental issues is discussed
more fully in Review under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), Section VI, subpart J of this final rule.
3. Estimates by the Agency, if and to the Extent That the Agency
Determines That Accurate Estimates Are Reasonably Feasible of Future
Compliance Costs of the Federal Mandate and Any Disproportionate
Budgetary Effects of the Federal Mandate Upon Any Particular Regions of
the Nation or Particular State, Local, or Tribal Governments, Urban or
Rural or Other Types of Communities, or Particular Segments of the
Private Sector
DHS has provided compliance costs of the main provisions that may
indirectly trigger Federal mandates in the full RIA discussion of each
provision published with this final rule as well as in the FRFA. DHS
reiterates that state and private sector entities make the cost-benefit
decisions of whether to expend finances to engage with foreign
nonimmigrants participating in the F, J, or I visa programs, and that
nonimmigrant visa holders make the decision to incur costs associated
with this rule if they choose to apply for an EOS.
4. Estimates by the Agency of the Effect on the National Economy, Such
as the Effect on Productivity, Economic Growth, Full Employment,
Creation of Productive Jobs, and International Competitiveness of
United States Goods and Services, if and to the Extent That the Agency
in Its Sole Discretion Determines That Accurate Estimates Are
Reasonably Feasible and That Such Effect Is Relevant and Material
DHS has provided discussions of the effect of this rule on the
economy in Section IV, Subsection Q of the final rule and in the final
rule RIA available in the docket.
5. A Description of the Extent of the Agency's Prior Consultation With
Elected Representatives (Under Section 204) of the Affected State,
Local, and Tribal Governments; a Summary of the Comments and Concerns
That Were Presented by State, Local, or Tribal Governments Either
Orally or in Writing to the Agency; and a Summary of the Agency's
Evaluation of those Comments and Concerns
DHS did not consult with elected representatives of the affected
State, local, and tribal governments. After the publication of the
proposed rule, DHS did receive public comments from state and local
educational institutions and responded to those comments. These
comments were concerned with the impacts of this rule on higher
education, including enrollment impacts, costs of EOS requests, and
additional burden on DSOs. These comments were
[[Page 45120]]
summarized in Section IV of this rule, and impacts on higher education
were specifically summarized and responded to in Section IV.B.4.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act--Collection of Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 109
Stat. 163 (1995) (PRA), all Departments are required to submit to OMB,
for review and approval, any reporting or recordkeeping requirements
inherent in a rule. To conform with the requirements set forth by the
PRA, on August 28, 2025, at 90 FR 42070, DHS, USCIS and ICE requested
comments on the following information collections. Several comments
were received on these information collections during the comment
period. ICE responded to these comments above in Section IV above. Each
of the forms will require non-substantive edits to comply with this
rulemaking. Accordingly, ICE has submitted PRA Change Worksheet, Form
OMB 83-C, and amended information collection instruments to OMB for
review and approval in accordance with the PRA. Any change in the
number of respondents and public burden is reflected below. At this
time, the following forms are not open for comment.
ICE Forms I-20 and I-17
Overview of information collection: (1) Type of Information
Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System (SEVIS).
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-20 and I-17, ICE.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary Non-profit institutions and
individuals or households. SEVIS is an internet-based data entry,
collection and reporting system. It collects information on SEVP-
certified school via the Form I-17, ``Petition for Approval of School
for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student,'' and collects information on
the F and M nonimmigrant students that the SEVP- certified schools
admit into their programs of study via the Forms I-20s: ``Certificate
of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Students Status-- For Academic
and Language Students'' and ``Certificate of Eligibility for
Nonimmigrant (M-1) Students Status-- For Vocational Students.''
Revisions to the SEVIS collections include substantive and non-
substantive changes to SEVIS to support additional recordkeeping and
reporting requirements associated with recommendations for an F-1
student EOS. The revision is to add fields to facilitate a DSO
recommendation for an F nonimmigrant student's EOS, update the list of
educational levels, and update the Form I-20 instructions page.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated
total number of respondents for the information requests Form I-17 and
Form I-20 is 20,890. The estimated hour burden per response is 42.8
hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated
with this collection of information in hours is 894,106.
(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated
with this collection of information is $49,956,309.
USCIS Forms I-539 and I-539A
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Extend/Change
Nonimmigrant Status.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-539 and I-539A; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form
will be used for nonimmigrants to apply for an EOS, for a change to
another nonimmigrant classification, or for obtaining V nonimmigrant
classification.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-539
(paper) is 459,860 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.667
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form I-539 (e-file) is 197,083 and the estimated hour burden
per response is 1 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection Supplement A is 207,600 and the estimated
hour burden per response is .35 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents providing biometrics is 864,543 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 1.17 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated
with this collection of information in hours is 2,047,845.
(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated
with this collection of information is $83,736,379.
USCIS Form I-765
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-12, DHS
must submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule unless they are exempt. Although this rule does not
impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the PRA
for this information collection, this rule will require non-substantive
edits to USCIS Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.
Accordingly, USCIS has submitted a Paperwork Reduction Act Change
Worksheet, Form OMB 83-C, and amended information collection
instruments to OMB for review and approval in accordance with the PRA.
G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. DHS does not expect that this final rule
will impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments or preempt State law. Therefore, in accordance with section
6 of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, it is determined that this rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
H. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
This final rule meets applicable standards set forth in sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification
and burden reduction.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
DHS has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That
[[Page 45121]]
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. DHS has
determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under that
order because it is a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866 but is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
J. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
DHS and its components analyze final actions to determine whether
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA''), 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq., applies to them and, if so, what degree of analysis is
required. DHS Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 \350\ and Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01 Rev. 01 (Instruction Manual) \351\ establish the policies
and procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\ Dep't of Homeland Sec., Implementation of the National
Environmental Policy Act, Directive 023-01, Revision 01 (Oct. 31,
2014), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/environmental-management/mgmt-dir_023-01-implementation-national-environmental-policy-act_revision-01.pdf.
\351\ Dep't of Homeland Sec., Implementation of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev 01 (Nov. 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish categories of actions
(``categorical exclusions'') that experience has shown do not,
individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human
environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment
(EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS).\352\ An agency is not
required to prepare an EA or EIS for a proposed action ``if the
proposed agency action is excluded pursuant to one of the agency's
categorical exclusions.'' See 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2), 4336e(1). The
Instruction Manual, Appendix A, Table 1, lists the DHS Categorical
Exclusions.\353\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\352\ See 42 U.S.C. 4336c.
\353\ See Appendix A, Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be
categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three
conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of
the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger
action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the
potential for a significant environmental effect.\354\ DHS s amending
its regulations to eliminate the practice of admitting F-1 nonimmigrant
students, I nonimmigrant representatives of information media, and J-1
exchange visitors (and F-2/J-2 family members) for D/S. The final rule
would provide for nonimmigrants seeking entry under F, J, or I visas to
be admitted for the period required to complete their academic program,
foreign information media employment, or exchange program, not to
exceed the periods of time defined in this final rule. The final rule
would also require nonimmigrants seeking to continue their studies,
foreign information media employment, or exchange program beyond the
admission period granted at entry to apply for extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\354\ Dep't of Homeland Sec., Instruction Manual, supra note
351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS has analyzed this final rule under MD 023-01 Rev. 01 and IM
023-01-001-01 Rev. 01. DHS has determined that this final rulemaking
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
final rule completely fits within the Categorical Exclusion found in IM
023-01-001-01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1, number A3(d):
``Promulgation of rules. that interpret or amend an existing regulation
without changing its environmental effect.'' This final rule is not
part of a larger action. This final rule presents no extraordinary
circumstances creating the potential for significant environmental
effects. Therefore, this final rule is categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.
DHS seeks any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of any significant environmental effects from this final
rule.
K. Executive Order 13175: Indian Tribal Governments
This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it will not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
L. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
M. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks, requires agencies to consider the
impacts of environmental health risk or safety risk that may
disproportionately affect children. DHS has reviewed this final rule
and determined that even though this rule is an economically
significant rule, it would not create an environmental risk to health
or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
Therefore, DHS has not prepared a statement under this executive order.
N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards will be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This final rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
O. Family Assessment
DHS has determined that this action will not affect family well-
being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999
(Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
List of Subjects
8 CFR Part 214
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange
program, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Students.
8 CFR Part 248
Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 45122]]
8 CFR Part 274a
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange
program, Employment, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Students.
Regulatory Amendments
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends parts 214, 248,
and 274a of chapter I, subchapter B, of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 214--NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES
0
1. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182,
1184, 1186a, 1187, 1188, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305, 1357, and
1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Pub. L. 106-
386, 114 Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free
Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic
of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C.
1901 note and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2;
Pub. L. 115-218, 132 Stat. 1547 (48 U.S.C. 1806).
0
2. Section 214.1 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b) heading, (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(2)
introductory text, and (b)(3) introductory text;
0
c. Removing paragraph (b)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3)(v); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) and (m).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 214.1 Requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of
status.
(a) * * *
(4) Requirements for admission of aliens under section
101(a)(15)(F) and (J). Aliens applying for admission as F or J
nonimmigrants after September 15, 2026, will be inspected and may be
admitted into the United States, if in possession of a valid Form I-20
or Form DS-2019, or successor form, and otherwise eligible, and subject
to the following:
(i) Aliens applying for admission as F nonimmigrants. (A) Aliens
seeking admission to the United States, including those seeking
admission with a properly filed pending application for an extension of
stay, as an F nonimmigrant after a previously authorized period of
admission as an F nonimmigrant expired, may be admitted for a maximum
period of 4 years or the length of program as specified on Form I-20,
whichever is shorter, plus additional 30 day periods for arrival and
departure as provided in Sec. 214.2(f)(5)(i);
(B) Aliens seeking admission to the United States as an F
nonimmigrant with a properly filed pending application for extension of
stay as an F nonimmigrant may, if they have time remaining on the
period of stay authorized prior to departure, be admitted for a period
up to the unexpired period of stay authorized prior to the alien's
departure, plus an additional 30 days as provided in Sec.
214.2(f)(5)(v), subject to the requirements in paragraph (c)(8) of this
section, or if the alien seeks admission with a Form I-20 for a program
end date beyond their previously authorized period of admission, the
alien may be admitted for the period specified in Sec. 214.2(f)(5),
subject to the requirements in paragraph (c)(8) of this section; and
(C) Aliens seeking admission to the United States as an F
nonimmigrant with an approved extension of stay for F nonimmigrant
status may be admitted until the expiration of the approved extension
of stay, plus an additional 30 days, as provided in Sec.
214.2(f)(5)(v).
(ii) Aliens applying for admission as J nonimmigrants. (A) Aliens
seeking admission to the United States, including those seeking
admission with a properly filed, pending application for an extension
of stay as a J nonimmigrant after a previously authorized period of
admission as a J nonimmigrant expired, may be admitted for the period
specified in Sec. 214.2(j)(1)(ii);
(B) Aliens seeking admission to the United States as a J
nonimmigrant with a properly filed pending extension of stay as a J
nonimmigrant may, if they have time remaining on the period of stay
authorized prior to departure, be admitted for a period up to the
unexpired period of stay authorized prior to the alien's departure,
plus an additional 30 days as provided in Sec. 214.2(j)(1)(ii)(C),
subject to the requirements in paragraph (c)(8) of this section,
provided that if the alien seeks admission with a Form DS-2019 for a
program end date beyond his or her previously authorized period of
admission, the alien may be admitted for the period specified in Sec.
214.2(j)(1), subject to the requirements in paragraph (c)(8) of this
section; and
(C) Aliens seeking admission to the United States as a J
nonimmigrant with an approved extension of stay in J nonimmigrant
status may be admitted up to the expiration of the approved extension
of stay, plus an additional 30 days as provided in Sec.
214.2(j)(1)(ii)(C).
(iii) Post-completion optional practical training (OPT) and
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) OPT extension.
Aliens seeking admission to the United States as an F nonimmigrant to
pursue post-completion OPT or a STEM OPT extension may be admitted
until the end date of the approved employment authorization for post-
completion OPT or STEM OPT, or if the Application for Employment
Authorization, Form I-765 (or successor form) for post-completion OPT
or STEM OPT is still pending with USCIS, as evidenced by a notice
issued by USCIS indicating receipt of such application, until the
Designated School Official's recommended employment end date for post-
completion OPT or STEM OPT specified on the Form I-20, subject to the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(8) of this section and 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(6)(iv), plus a 30-day period as provided in Sec.
214.2(f)(5)(v).
(b) Admission of nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(F), (J), or
(M) whose visa validity is considered automatically extended to
complete unexpired periods of previous admission or extension of stay--
(1) Section 101(a)(15)(F). The inspecting immigration officer may
admit, up to the unexpired period of stay authorized prior to the
alien's departure, any nonimmigrant alien whose nonimmigrant visa
validity is considered automatically extended pursuant to 22 CFR
41.112(d) and who is applying for admission under section 101(a)(15)(F)
of the Act, if the alien:
* * * * *
(2) Section 101(a)(15)(J). The inspecting immigration officer may
admit, up to the unexpired period of stay authorized prior to the
alien's departure, any nonimmigrant alien whose nonimmigrant visa
validity is considered automatically extended pursuant to 22 CFR
41.112(d) and who is applying for admission under section 101(a)(15)(J)
of the Act, if the alien:
* * * * *
(3) Section 101(a)(15)(M). The inspecting immigration officer may
admit, up to the unexpired period of stay authorized prior to the
alien's departure, any nonimmigrant alien whose nonimmigrant visa
validity is considered automatically extended pursuant to 22 CFR
41.112(d) and who is applying for admission under section 101(a)(15)(M)
of the Act, if the alien:
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Filing for an extension of stay. Any other nonimmigrant who
seeks to extend his or her stay beyond the currently authorized period
of admission must apply for an extension of stay by filing an extension
request in the manner and on the form prescribed
[[Page 45123]]
by USCIS, together with the required fees and all initial evidence
specified in the applicable provisions of Sec. 214.2, and in the form
instructions, including the submission of any biometrics required by 8
CFR 103.16. More than one person may be included in an application if
the co-applicants are all members of a single-family unit and either
all hold the same nonimmigrant status, or one holds a nonimmigrant
status, and the other co-applicants are his or her spouse and/or
children who hold derivative nonimmigrant status based on his or her
status. Extensions granted to members of a family unit must be for the
same period of time. The shortest period granted to any member of the
family will be granted to all members of the family. In order to be
eligible for an extension of stay, nonimmigrant aliens in K-3/K-4
status must do so in accordance with Sec. 214.2(k)(10).
(3) * * *
(v) Any nonimmigrant admitted for duration of status, except those
who fall under paragraph (m) of this section;
* * * * *
(8) Abandonment of extension of stay and pending employment
authorization applications for F, I, and J nonimmigrant aliens. (i) If
an alien in F, I, or J nonimmigrant status timely files an application
for an extension of stay, USCIS will not consider the application
abandoned if the alien departs the United States while the application
is pending, provided that when the alien seeks admission, the
previously authorized period of admission has not expired, and the
alien seeks admission for the balance of the previously authorized
admission period.
(ii) An application for extension of stay in F, I, or J
nonimmigrant status may be deemed abandoned if an alien departs the
United States and seeks admission with a Form I-20 or DS-2019 for a
program end date beyond their previously authorized period of admission
while the application for an extension of stay is pending. USCIS will
not consider as abandoned any corresponding applications for employment
authorization.
(iii) When an alien described in paragraph (c)(8)(i) or (ii) of
this section departs, the alien should travel with a copy of their Form
I-797C, Notice of Action, or successor form, which confirms the receipt
of either their Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant
Status, or Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, along
with proposed length of stay as evidenced by the Form I-20, DS-2019, or
letter of employment for a foreign media organization.
* * * * *
(m) Transition period from duration of status to a fixed admission
date--(1) Transition from duration of status admission to a fixed
admission period for aliens properly maintaining F and J status on
September 15, 2026. Aliens with F or J status who are properly
maintaining their status on September 15, 2026, and who were admitted
for duration of status are authorized to remain in the United States in
F or J nonimmigrant status until the later date of either the
expiration date on an Employment Authorization Document, Form I-766, or
successor form, or the program end date noted on their Form I-20 or
Form DS-2019, as applicable, not to exceed a period of 4 years from
September 15, 2026, plus the departure period of 60 days for F
nonimmigrants, which is November 14, 2030, and 30 days for J
nonimmigrants, which is October 15, 2030. Subject to 8 CFR 274a.14, any
authorized employment or training continues until the program end date
on such F or J nonimmigrant's Form I-20 or DS-2019, as applicable and
as endorsed by the designated school official or responsible officer
for employment or training, or expiration date on the alien's
Employment Authorization Document, Form I-766, or successor form.
Aliens who need additional time to complete their current program of
study, including requests for post-completion optional practical
training (OPT) and the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM) OPT extension, or exchange visitor program, including academic
training, or would like to start a new program of study or exchange
visitor program must apply for an extension of stay with USCIS in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section for an admission
period to a fixed date.
(i) Notwithstanding this paragraph (m)(1), an F-1 student
recommended for post-completion OPT who files before his or her period
of admission expires, including the 60 day departure period, an
Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form
on the form and in the manner designated by USCIS, with the required
fee, as described in the form's instructions, on or before March 18,
2027, is not required to file an Application to Extend/Change
Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, or successor form for the requested
period of post-completion OPT. An F-1 student recommended for STEM OPT
who files, prior to the expiration of his or her current OPT Employment
Authorization Document, Form I-766, or successor form, an Application
for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form on or
before March 18, 2027, is not required to file an Application to
Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, or successor form for
the requested period of STEM OPT. If the alien's application for post-
completion OPT or STEM OPT employment authorization is approved, the
alien will be authorized to remain in the United States in F status
until the expiration date of the Employment Authorization Document,
plus 60 days. If the employment authorization application is denied,
the F-1 student would continue to be authorized to remain in the United
States until the program end date listed on their Form I-20, valid on
September 15, 2026, plus 60 days, as long as he or she continues to
pursue a full course of study and otherwise meets the requirements for
F-1 status, or until the end date of the Employment Authorization
Document for post-completion OPT, as long as he or she continues to
meet the requirements for F-1 status, plus 60 days.
(ii) An F-1 student described in this paragraph (m)(1) who departs
the United States before filing the application for post-completion OPT
or STEM OPT, and is admitted to the United States with a fixed period
of admission is required to file both an Application for Employment
Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form and an Application to
Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, or successor form
pursuant to Sec. 214.2(f)(11)(i)(B)(2) or (f)(11)(i)(C). An alien
described in this section who departs the United States while the
Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form
is pending or once approved will be admitted pursuant to paragraph (a)
of this section.
(iii) DHS reserves the discretion to extend the period exempting
the filing of the Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status,
Form I-539, or successor form beyond March 18, 2027, in 6-month
increments by publication of a notification in the Federal Register.
(2) Pending employment authorization applications with USCIS on
September 15, 2026, filed by F-1 students. F-1 students described in
paragraph (m)(1) of this section who have timely and properly filed
applications for employment authorization pending with USCIS on
September 15, 2026, do not have to file for an extension or re-file
such applications for employment
[[Page 45124]]
authorization, unless otherwise requested by USCIS.
(i) If the F-1 student's application for post-completion OPT or
STEM OPT employment authorization is approved, the F-1 student will be
authorized to remain in the United States in F status until the
expiration date of the Employment Authorization Document, plus 60 days.
If the employment authorization application is denied, the F-1 student
would continue to be authorized to remain in the United States until
the program end date listed on their Form I-20, plus 60 days, as long
as he or she continues to pursue a full course of study and otherwise
meets the requirements for F-1 status.
(ii) F-1 students with pending employment authorization
applications, other than post-completion OPT and STEM OPT, who continue
to pursue a full course of study and otherwise meet the requirements
for F-1 status, continue to be authorized to remain in the United
States until the program end date listed on the Form I-20, plus 60
days, regardless of whether the employment authorization application is
approved or denied.
(3) Transition from duration of status admission to a fixed
admission period for aliens with I status present in the United States
on September 15, 2026. Except for those aliens described in Sec.
214.2(i)(3)(ii), aliens in I nonimmigrant status who are properly
maintaining their status on September 15, 2026, and who were admitted
for duration of status are authorized to remain in the United States in
I nonimmigrant status for a period necessary to complete their
activity, not to exceed May 13, 2027, with the exception of aliens in I
nonimmigrant status presenting with passports described in Sec.
214.2(i)(3)(ii), who are authorized to remain in the United States in I
nonimmigrant status for a period necessary to complete their activity,
not to exceed December 14, 2026. Aliens who need additional time to
complete their employment beyond May 13, 2027, or December 14, 2026, as
applicable, must apply for an extension of stay with USCIS in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section and Sec. 214.2(i)(5).
(4) Severability. The provisions in this paragraph (m) are intended
to be independent severable parts. In the event that any provision in
this paragraph (m) is not implemented, DHS intends that the remaining
provisions be implemented as an independent rule.
0
3. Section 214.2 is amended by:
0
a. In table 1 to the section, revising entry (j);
0
b. In table 2 to paragraph (f):
0
i. Revising entries (5) and (8); and
0
ii. Adding entry (20);
0
c. Revising paragraph (f)(5) heading and paragraphs (f)(5)(i) and (ii);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (f)(5)(iii) through (vi) as paragraphs
(f)(5)(iv) through (vii), respectively;
0
e. Adding a new paragraph (f)(5)(iii);
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (f)(5)(v) and (vii);
0
g. Adding paragraph (f)(5)(viii);
0
h. Revising paragraphs (f)(7) and (8) and (f)(10)(ii)(D);
0
i. In paragraph (f)(11)(i)(B)(2), removing the number ``60'' and
adding, in its place, the number ``30'';
0
j. In paragraph (f)(11)(i)(D), removing the number ``60'' and adding,
in its place, the number ``30'';
0
k. In paragraph (f)(18)(iii), removing the words ``duration of status
and'' from the last sentence;
0
l. Adding paragraph (f)(20);
0
m. Revising paragraphs (i), (j) heading, and (j)(1)(ii) and (iv)
through (viii); and
0
n. Adding paragraphs (j)(1)(ix) and (j)(6).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 214.2 Special requirements for admission, extension, and
maintenance of status.
Table 1 to Sec. 214.2--Section Contents
* * * * *
(j) Exchange visitors
* * * * *
(f) * * *
Table 2 to Paragraph (f)--Paragraph Contents
* * * * *
(5) Period of stay
* * * * *
(8) School transfer and change of educational objectives
* * * * *
(20) Severability
* * * * *
(5) Period of stay--(i) General. An F-1 student is admitted for a
fixed period of time, which is the period necessary to complete the
course of study indicated on the Form I-20, or successor form, not to
exceed a period of 4 years, plus additional times noted in this
paragraph (f)(5)(i). A continuing F-1 student may be granted additional
time to complete their program of study, as described in paragraphs
(f)(7) and (f)(8)(iv) of this section, begin a new program of study, as
described in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(D) and (f)(7) of this section, or
following the completion of studies to engage in post-completion
optional practical training (OPT) and the Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) extension of OPT, as described in
paragraph (f)(5)(i)(D) of this section. An F-1 student described in
this section may be admitted for a period of up to 30 days before the
indicated report date or program start date listed on the Form I-20 or
successor form. An alien described in this paragraph (f)(5)(i) may
remain in the United States for an additional 30 days as provided in
paragraph (f)(5)(v) of this section. The 30-day period before the
indicated report date or program start date and 30 additional days
following the program end date or the 4-year maximum period of
admission do not count toward the maximum length of stay. The admission
periods described in this paragraph (f)(5)(i) are subject to the
following exceptions:
(A) F-1 students whose course of study is in an English language
training program are restricted to a maximum of admission period of 24
months, plus an additional 30-day period of stay for the purposes of
departure or to otherwise seek to maintain lawful status.
(B) Border commuter students under the provisions in paragraph
(f)(18) of this section may be admitted for the applicable period
described under paragraph (f)(18).
(C) F-1 students attending a public high school, which may also
include a charter school or other similar school funded by U.S.
taxpayers, are restricted to an aggregate of no more than 12 months to
complete their course of study, including any school breaks and annual
vacations.
(D) Students with pending employment authorization applications who
are admitted based on the designated school official's recommended
employment end date for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT as specified on
their Form I-20, with a notice issued by USCIS indicating receipt of
the Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor
form for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT, who cease employment pursuant
to an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that expires before the
alien's fixed date of admission as noted on their Arrival/Departure
Record, Form I-94, or successor form, will be considered to be in the
United States in a period of authorized stay from the date of the
expiration noted on their EAD until the fixed date of admission as
noted on their Form I-94.
(E) The authorized period of stay for F-2 dependents may not exceed
the authorized period of stay of the principal F-1 student.
(ii) School transfer and change of educational objectives. (A) An
F-1 student at any level below the graduate
[[Page 45125]]
degree level may not transfer or change educational objectives, i.e.,
majors or educational levels, within the first academic year of a
program of study, unless an exception is authorized by SEVP for
extenuating circumstances that may include, but are not limited to, a
school closure or a school's prolonged inability to hold in-person
classes due to a natural disaster, a student needing to change schools
to complete elementary or secondary education, or other cause. An F-1
student at the graduate degree level or above may not change
educational objectives at any point during their program of study. An
F-1 student at the graduate degree level or above may not transfer at
any point during their program of study, unless an exception is
authorized by SEVP for extenuating circumstances that may include, but
are not limited to, a school closure or a school's prolonged inability
to hold in-person classes due to a natural disaster or other cause.
(B) An F-1 student who has completed a program in the United States
at one educational level and begins a new program at a higher
educational level is considered to be maintaining F-1 status if
otherwise complying with requirements under this paragraph (f).
(C) An alien who has completed a program after September 15, 2026,
in the United States as an F-1 student at one educational level may not
maintain, be admitted, or otherwise be provided F-1 status through a
program at the same educational level or a lower educational level.
(D) When seeking a change in educational objectives, F-1 students
referenced in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section
must, if seeking an extension of stay, apply for an extension of stay
on the form designated by USCIS, with the required fee and in
accordance with the form instructions, including any biometrics
required by 8 CFR 103.16.
(E) Until September 14, 2028, DHS may delay or suspend the
implementation of paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section,
in its discretion, if it determines that implementation is infeasible
for any reason. If DHS delays or suspends any provisions in paragraphs
(f)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) governing the change in educational
objectives, DHS will make an announcement of the delay or suspension by
publication of a notification in the Federal Register and on SEVP's
website at https://www.studyinthestates.dhs.gov (or successor uniform
resource locator). DHS thereafter will announce the implementation
dates of a delayed or suspended educational objective provision on the
SEVP website at https://www.studyinthestates.dhs.gov (or successor
uniform resource locator), at least 30 calendar days in advance.
(iii) Report date on Form I-20 or successor form. When determining
the report date on the Form I-20 or successor form, the designated
school official may choose a reasonable date to accommodate a student's
need to be in attendance for required activities at the school prior to
the actual start of classes. Such required activities may include, but
are not limited to, research projects and orientation sessions.
However, for purposes of employment, the designated school official may
not indicate a report date more than 30 days prior to the start of
classes.
* * * * *
(v) Period of preparation for departure or to otherwise maintain
lawful status in the United States. An F-1 student who has completed a
course of study and any authorized practical training will be allowed
an additional 30-day period from the program end date or the 4 year
maximum period of admission, or the end date of the approved employment
authorization for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT, as applicable, to
prepare for departure from the United States, or to otherwise seek to
maintain lawful status, including timely filing an extension of stay
application in accordance with paragraph (f)(7) of this section and
Sec. 214.1 or timely filing a change of status application in
accordance with 8 CFR 248.1(a). The 30-day period will be reflected on
the F-1 student's Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, or successor
form. However, if the F-1 student ends his or her study or training
prior to expiration of his or her period of admission, the F-1 student,
and any eligible dependents, must, within 30 days from the end date of
the study or training, depart the United States or otherwise seek to
maintain lawful status. An F-1 student authorized by the designated
school official to withdraw from classes will be allowed a 15-day
period from the date of the withdrawal to depart the United States. An
F-1 student who fails to maintain a full course of study or otherwise
fails to maintain status is not eligible for any additional period of
time for departure and must leave the country immediately.
* * * * *
(vii) Extension of status and grant of employment authorization.
(A) The status, and any employment authorization granted under 8 CFR
274a.12(c)(3)(i)(B) or (C), of an F-1 student who is the beneficiary of
an H-1B petition subject to section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Act (8 U.S.C.
1184(g)(1)(A)) requesting a change of status will be automatically
extended until April 1 of the fiscal year for which such H-1B status is
being requested or until the validity start date of the approved
petition, whichever is earlier, where such petition:
(1) Has been timely filed;
(2) Requests an H-1B employment start date in the fiscal year for
which such H-1B status is being requested consistent with paragraph
(h)(2)(i)(I) of this section; and
(3) Is nonfrivolous.
(B) The automatic extension of an F-1 student's status and
employment authorization under paragraph (f)(5)(vii)(A) of this section
shall automatically terminate upon the rejection, denial, revocation,
or withdrawal of the H-1B petition filed on such F-1 student's behalf,
or upon the denial or withdrawal of the request for change of
nonimmigrant status, even if the H-1B petition filed on the F-1
student's behalf is approved for consular processing.
(C) In order to obtain the automatic extension of stay and
employment authorization under paragraph (f)(5)(vii)(A) of this
section, the F-1 student, consistent with 8 CFR part 248, must not have
violated the terms or conditions of his or her nonimmigrant status.
(D) An automatic extension of an F-1 student's status under
paragraph (f)(5)(vii)(A) of this section also applies to the status of
any F-2 dependent aliens.
(viii) Automatic extension of the authorized period of stay and
employment authorization while extension of stay and employment
authorization applications are pending. An F-1 student whos1e status as
indicated on the Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, or successor form
has expired will be considered to be in a period of authorized stay if
he or she has timely filed an extension of stay application pursuant to
paragraph (f)(7) of this section until USCIS issues a decision on the
extension of stay application. Subject to paragraphs (f)(9)(i) and (ii)
and (f)(10)(i) of this section and 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(6)(i) and (iii) and
(c)(3)(iii), an F-1 student's current on-campus, curricular practical
training (CPT), and severe economic hardship authorized employment is
automatically extended during the pendency of the extension of stay
application, but such automatic extension may not exceed 240 days
beginning from the end date of his or her period of admission as
indicated on
[[Page 45126]]
the alien's Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, or successor form.
However, severe economic hardship employment authorization resulting
from emergent circumstances under paragraph (f)(5)(vi) of this section
is automatically extended for up to 240 days or until the end date
stated in the Federal Register notification announcing the suspension
of certain requirements, whichever is earlier. If an F-1 student files
an extension of stay application during the 30-day period provided in
paragraph (f)(5)(v) of this section, he or she does not receive an
automatic extension of authorized employment, including on-campus, CPT,
and severe economic hardship, and must wait for approval of the
extension of stay application (and employment authorization
application, if required) before engaging in CPT or employment. For
purposes of employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) under 8 CFR
274a.2(b)(1)(v), for CPT under paragraph (f)(10)(i) of this section,
on-campus employment under paragraph (f)(9)(i) of this section, and
severe economic hardship employment authorization resulting from
emergent circumstances under paragraph (f)(5)(vi) of this section, the
alien's authorized employment period, which ends 30 days before their
Form I-94 or successor form admit until date, or Employment
Authorization Document, Form I-766 or successor form, based on severe
economic hardship, when combined with a notice issued by USCIS
indicating receipt of an extension of stay application, is considered
unexpired for up to 240 days or until USCIS issues a decision on the
extension of stay application, or for CPT, until the CPT end date
authorized by the designated school official on the Form I-20 or
successor form, whichever is earlier, or for severe economic hardship
employment based on emergent circumstances under paragraph (f)(5)(vi)
of this section, the end date stated in the Federal Register
notification announcing suspension of certain requirements, whichever
is less.
* * * * *
(7) Extension of stay--(i) Eligibility. USCIS may grant an
extension of stay to an F-1 student who has maintained his or her F-1
status, but who is unable to complete his or her program by the end of
his or her authorized period of admission. Such student may be eligible
for an extension if the designated school official issues a new Form I-
20 or successor form certifying that the student is eligible under this
paragraph (f)(7)(i). An F-1 student may be granted an extension if it
is established that the student:
(A) Has continually maintained lawful status;
(B) Is currently pursuing a full course of study; and
(C) Has one of the following:
(1) A currently issued Form I-20, or successor form, indicating
additional time is left to complete his or her program of study; or
(2) Documentation demonstrating the request for an extension is
based on one of the following reasons:
(i) A compelling academic reason, such as a change of major or
research topic or unexpected research problems. Unexpected research
problems are those caused by an unexpected change in faculty advisor,
need to refine an investigatory topic based on initial research,
research funding delays, and similar issues. Delays including, but not
limited to, those caused by academic probation or suspension or a
student's repeated inability or unwillingness to complete his or her
course of study are not acceptable reasons for an extension;
(ii) A documented illness or medical condition that is a compelling
medical reason, such as a serious injury, that is supported by medical
documentation from a licensed medical doctor, a licensed doctor of
osteopathy, a licensed psychologist, or a licensed clinical
psychologist; or
(iii) Circumstances beyond the student's control, including a
natural disaster, national health crisis, or the closure of an
institution.
(ii) SEVIS update. The Form I-20 or successor form must be endorsed
with the designated school official recommendation and new program end
date for submission to USCIS.
(iii) USCIS application--(A) Form. An F-1 student must file an
extension of stay application using the form and in the manner
designated by USCIS, including submitting the updated, properly
endorsed Form I-20 or successor form; submitting evidence of sufficient
funds to cover expenses; appearing for any biometrics collection
required by 8 CFR 103.16; and remitting the appropriate fee. The F-1
student must be maintaining his or her status and must never have
engaged in any unauthorized employment.
(B) Timely filing. An extension of stay application is considered
timely filed if the receipt date, pursuant to 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7), is on
or before the date the authorized period of stay expires, which
includes the 30-day period provided in paragraph (f)(5)(v) of this
section. USCIS must receive the extension application on or before the
expiration of the authorized period of stay, including the 30-day
period provided in paragraph (f)(5)(v) of this section that is allowed
after the completion of studies or any authorized practical training.
If the extension of stay application is received during the 30-day
period provided in paragraph (f)(5)(v) of this section, the F-1 student
is authorized to continue a full course of study but may not continue
or begin engaging in practical training or other employment.
Notwithstanding Sec. 214.1(c)(4), USCIS must receive the extension of
stay application on or before the expiration of the previously
authorized period of stay.
(iv) Dependents. An F-2 spouse and unmarried children under the age
of 21 seeking to accompany the principal F-1 student during the
additional period of admission must either be included on the principal
F-1 student's application for an extension of stay or file their own
extension of stay application on the form designated by USCIS. The
application must be submitted using the form and in the manner
designated by USCIS, including submitting the updated, properly
endorsed Form I-20, or successor form; submitting evidence of
sufficient funds to cover expenses; appearing for any biometrics
collection required by 8 CFR 103.16; and remitting the appropriate fee.
The F-2 dependents must demonstrate the qualifying relationship with
the principal F-1 student, be maintaining his or her status, and must
not have engaged in any unauthorized employment.
(v) Practical training. If seeking an extension of stay to engage
in any type of practical training, the alien in F-1 status also must
have a valid, properly endorsed Form I-20 and be eligible to receive
the specific type of practical training requested.
(vi) Period of stay. If an application for extension is granted,
the F-1 student and the student's F-2 spouse and children, if
applicable, are to be given an extension of stay for the period of time
necessary to complete the program as listed on the F-1 student's Form
I-20, or successor form, or requested practical training, not to exceed
4 years. The 30-day period before the indicated report date or program
start date and 30 additional days following the program end date or the
4-year maximum period of admission do not count toward the maximum
length of an extension. Extensions of stay for F-2 dependents may not
exceed the authorized admission period of the principal F-1 student.
(vii) Denials. If an F-1 student's extension of stay application is
denied and the F-1 student's authorized admission period has expired,
the F-1 student and his or her dependents must immediately depart the
United States.
[[Page 45127]]
(viii) Late requests of extension of current program end date. If
the designated school official enters an extension of the program end
date in SEVIS after the end date noted on the most recent Form I-20 or
successor form has passed, the F-1 student must file a request for
reinstatement of F-1 status in the manner and on the form designated by
USCIS, with the required fee, including any biometrics required by 8
CFR 103.16. F-2 dependents seeking to accompany the F-1 principal
student must file applications for an extension of stay or
reinstatement, as applicable.
(8) School transfer and change of educational objectives--(i)
Eligibility. An F-1 student may change educational objectives or
transfer to SEVP-certified schools if he or she is maintaining status
as described in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
``Educational objectives'' refers to an F-1 student's educational level
or major. An F-1 student changing educational objectives or
transferring to an SEVP-certified school also must meet the following
requirements:
(A) The student is currently maintaining status;
(B) To be eligible to transfer, the student must:
(1) Have been pursuing a full course of study, unless a reduced
course load was properly authorized under this paragraph (f);
(2) Have completed a degree program; or
(3) Be currently completing or have completed post-completion or
STEM optional practical training (OPT);
(C) The student is not currently in a graduate level program of
study, unless an exception has been authorized by SEVP for extenuating
circumstances under paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(A) of this section;
(D) The student has completed his or her first academic year of a
program of study at the school that initially issued his or her Form I-
20 or successor form, unless an exception has been authorized by SEVP
for extenuating circumstances under paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(A) of this
section;
(E) The student has not been placed on academic probation or school
suspension;
(F) The student does not have a pattern of behavior demonstrating a
repeated inability or unwillingness to complete his or her course of
study;
(G) The student will begin classes at the transfer school or
program within 5 months of transferring out of the current school or
within 5 months of the program completion date on his or her current
Form I-20, or successor form, whichever is earlier; and
(H) If the F-1 student is authorized to engage in post-completion
or STEM OPT, he or she must be able to begin or resume classes within 5
months of transferring out of the school that recommended the post-
completion or STEM OPT or the date the post-completion or STEM OPT
authorization ends, whichever is earlier.
(ii) Transfer procedure. An F-1 student must first notify the
student's current school (``transfer-out school'') of the intent to
transfer and indicate the school to which the student intends to
transfer (the ``transfer-in school''). Upon notification by the
student, the transfer-out school will update the student's record in
SEVIS as a ``transfer-out'' and indicate the transfer-in school and a
release date. The release date will be the current semester or session
completion date, or the date of expected transfer if earlier than the
completion date of the established academic cycle. The transfer-out
school will retain control over the student's record in SEVIS until the
student completes the current term or reaches the release date,
whichever is earlier. At the request of the student, the designated
school official of the current school may cancel the transfer request
at any time prior to the release date. As of the release date specified
by the current designated school official, the transfer-in school will
be granted full access to the student's SEVIS record and then becomes
responsible for that student. The student should then obtain a valid
Form I-20 or successor form from the transfer-in school.
(iii) Change of education level procedures. A change of education
level can be accomplished according to the transfer procedures outlined
in paragraph (f)(8)(ii) of this section.
(iv) Extension of stay. If the new program to which the student
transferred will not be completed within the authorized period of stay
established in paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section, the F-1 student
must apply to USCIS for an extension of stay in the manner and using
the form designated by USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance
with form instructions, including any biometrics required by 8 CFR
103.16, together with a valid, properly endorsed Form I-20 or successor
form indicating the new program end date. Upon approval of the
extension of stay application, USCIS will transmit the approval to
SEVIS. If the application is denied, the student is out of status, and
the student's record must be terminated in SEVIS.
* * * * *
(10) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) Extension of stay for post-completion optional practical
training (OPT). Unless described in Sec. 214.1(m)(1)(i), an F-1
student recommended for post-completion OPT must apply for an
employment authorization and either apply for an extension of stay with
USCIS or seek admission through CBP after travel abroad and may not
engage in post-completion OPT unless such employment authorization is
granted. If the application for post-completion OPT is granted along
with an extension of stay or admission through CBP after travel abroad,
the student extension will include the additional 30-day period
provided in paragraph (f)(5)(v) of this section for departure following
the expiration of the time approved to complete post-completion OPT.
* * * * *
(20) Severability. The provisions in paragraph (f) of this section
are intended to be independent severable parts. In the event that any
provision in this paragraph (f) is not implemented, DHS intends that
the remaining provisions be implemented as an independent rule.
* * * * *
(i) Representatives of information media--(1) Foreign media
organization. A foreign information media organization is an
organization engaged in the regular gathering, production, or
dissemination via print, radio, television, internet distribution, or
other media, of journalistic information and has a home office in a
foreign country.
(2) Evidence. Aliens applying for I nonimmigrant status must:
(i) Demonstrate that the foreign media organization that the alien
represents has a home office in a foreign country, and that the home
office will continue to operate in the foreign country while the alien
is in the United States; and
(ii) Provide a letter from the employing foreign media organization
or, if self-employed or freelancing, an attestation from the alien,
that verifies the employment, establishes that the alien is a
representative of that media organization, and describes the
remuneration and work to be performed.
(3) Admission--(i) Length of admission. Generally, aliens seeking
admission in I nonimmigrant status may be admitted for a period of time
necessary to complete the planned activities or assignments consistent
with the I classification, not to exceed 240 days unless paragraph
(i)(3)(ii) of this section applies.
(ii) Foreign nationals travelling on a passport issued by the
People's Republic
[[Page 45128]]
of China (with the exception of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
passport holders and Macau Special Administrative Region passport
holders). An alien who presents a passport from the People's Republic
of China (with the exception of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
passport holders and Macau Special Administrative Region passport
holders), may be admitted until the activities or assignments
consistent with the I classification are completed, not to exceed 90
days.
(4) Change in activity. Aliens admitted pursuant to section
101(a)(15)(I) of the Act may not change the information medium or
employer until they obtain permission from USCIS. Aliens must request
permission by submitting the form designated by USCIS, in accordance
with that form's instructions, and with the required fee, including any
biometrics required by 8 CFR 103.16, as appropriate.
(5) Extensions of stay--(i) Eligibility; effect of timely filing.
(A) Aliens in I nonimmigrant status may be eligible for extensions of
stay, each of up to 240 days or until the activities or assignments
consistent with the I classification are completed, whichever is
shorter (except for aliens who present a passport from the People's
Republic of China, with the exception of Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region passport holders and Macau Special Administrative
Region passport holders, who may be eligible for extensions of stay,
each up to 90 days or until the activities or assignments consistent
with the I classification are completed, whichever is shorter).
(B) To request an extension of stay, aliens in I nonimmigrant
status must file an application to extend their stay by submitting the
form designated by USCIS, in accordance with that form's instructions,
and with the required fee, including any biometrics required by 8 CFR
103.16, and provide all the evidence required in paragraph (i)(2) of
this section, as appropriate. An alien whose I nonimmigrant status, as
indicated on the alien's Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, has
expired but who has timely filed an extension of stay application is
authorized to continue engaging in activities consistent with the I
classification on the day after the Form I-94 expired, for a period of
up to 240 days, as provided in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20). Such authorization
shall be subject to any conditions and limitations of the initial
authorization.
(C) If an extension of stay application remains pending at the end
of this 240-day period, the I nonimmigrant alien, whose status has
expired, may remain in the United States so long as the extension of
stay application is pending, he or she has timely filed a subsequent
extension of stay request to remain beyond the period requested in the
preceding request, and he or she does not otherwise violate the terms
of his or her authorized period of stay. The alien, however, must cease
working until his or her initial extension of stay application is
approved. USCIS will deny the extension of stay application if the
alien did not cease working after the 240-day period and before the
extension of stay request was approved.
(ii) Dependents accompanying or following to join the principal I
representative of foreign information media. A spouse or unmarried
children under the age of 21 of an alien in I nonimmigrant status may
be eligible for extensions of stay. The dependent applicant must either
be included on the primary applicant's request for an extension of stay
or file his or her own extension of stay application on the form
designated by USCIS in accordance with paragraph (i)(5)(i) or (iii) of
this section. The dependents must demonstrate the qualifying
relationship with the principal I representative of foreign information
media, be maintaining status, and must not have engaged in any
unauthorized employment. Extensions of stay for I dependents may not
exceed the authorized admission period of the principal I
representative of foreign information media.
(iii) Aliens with a passport from People's Republic of China. (A)
In the case of an alien who presents a passport issued by the People's
Republic of China (other than a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
passport or a Macau Special Administrative Region passport), an
extension of stay may be authorized until the activities or assignments
consistent with the I classification are completed, not to exceed the
maximum period of stay of 90 days. To request an extension of stay,
these aliens must file an application to extend their stay by
submitting the form designated by USCIS, in accordance with that form's
instructions, and with the required fee, including any biometrics
required by 8 CFR 103.16, as appropriate. Notwithstanding paragraph
(i)(5)(i) of this section and 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), an alien in I
nonimmigrant status who is described in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this
section whose status, as indicated on the alien's Arrival/Departure
Record, Form I-94, has expired but who has timely filed an extension of
stay application is authorized to continue engaging in activities
consistent with the I classification and continue employment with the
same employer on the day after the status indicated on the Form I-94
expired, for a period of up to 90 days. Such authorization shall be
subject to any conditions and limitations of the initial authorization.
(B) If an extension of stay application remains pending at the end
of this 90-day period, the I nonimmigrant alien, whose status has
expired, may remain in the United States so long as the extension of
stay application is pending, he or she has timely filed a subsequent
extension of stay request to remain beyond the period requested in the
preceding request, and he or she does not otherwise violate the terms
of his or her authorized period of stay. The alien, however, must cease
working until his or her initial extension of stay application is
approved. USCIS may deny the extension of stay application if the alien
did not cease working after the 90-day period and before the extension
of stay request was approved.
(iv) Documentation. The facially expired Arrival/Departure Record,
Form I-94, or successor form of an alien described in paragraphs
(i)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section is considered unexpired when
combined with a USCIS receipt notice indicating receipt of a timely
filed extension of stay application. An application is considered
timely filed if the receipt notice for the application is on or before
the date the admission period expires. Such extension may not exceed
the earlier of 240 days (90 days for aliens who present a passport
issued by the People's Republic of China (with the exception of Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region passport holders and Macau Special
Administrative Region passport holders)) as provided in 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20), or the date of denial of the alien's application for an
extension of stay.
(6) Denials. If an alien's extension of stay application is denied
and the alien's authorized admission period has expired, the alien and
his or her dependents must immediately depart the United States.
(7) Change of status. An alien seeking to change from a different
nonimmigrant status to, if eligible, an I nonimmigrant status as
described in this section, may be granted a period of stay until the
activities or assignments consistent with the I classification are
completed, not to exceed the maximum period of stay stated in paragraph
(i)(3) of this section. To request a change from a different
nonimmigrant status to an I nonimmigrant status as described in this
section, an alien must file an
[[Page 45129]]
application to change his or her status by submitting the form
designated by USCIS, in accordance with that form's instructions, and
with the required fee, including any biometrics required by 8 CFR
103.16, as appropriate.
(8) Severability. The provisions in this paragraph (i) are intended
to be independent severable parts. In the event that any provision in
this paragraph (i) is not implemented, DHS intends that the remaining
provisions be implemented as an independent rule.
(j) Exchange visitors--(1) * * *
(ii) Admission period and period of stay--(A) J-1 exchange visitor.
A J-1 exchange visitor may be admitted for the duration of the exchange
visitor program, as stated by the program end date noted on Form DS-
2019 or successor form, not to exceed a period of 4 years.
(B) J-2 accompanying dependents. The authorized period of initial
admission for a J-2 spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21
may not exceed the period of authorized admission of the principal J-1
exchange visitor.
(C) Period of stay. A J-1 exchange visitor and J-2 spouse and
unmarried children under the age of 21 may be admitted for a period up
to 30 days before the report date or start of the approved program
listed on Form DS-2019 or successor form. The dependents accompanying a
J-1 exchange visitor are eligible for admission in J-2 status if the
exchange visitor is admitted in J-1 status. A J-1 exchange visitor and
J-2 accompanying dependents may remain in the United States for a
period of 30 days from the program end date or the 4-year maximum
period of admission, whichever is earlier, for the purposes of
departure or to otherwise seek to maintain lawful status. The 30-day
period will be reflected on the alien's Arrival/Departure Record, Form
I-94 or successor form. If the program end date is shortened, the J-1
exchange visitor and any J-2 accompanying dependents must leave the
United States within 30 days from the new program end date or otherwise
seek to maintain lawful status in that 30-day period. The 30-day period
before the indicated report date or program start date and 30
additional days following the program end date or the 4-year maximum
period of admission do not count towards the maximum period of
admission.
* * * * *
(iv) Extension of stay. A program end date as indicated on the Form
DS-2019 or successor form, standing alone, does not allow aliens with J
status to remain in the United States in lawful status. An alien in J-1
status seeking to extend his or her stay beyond the currently
authorized period of admission must apply for an extension of stay,
including if a sponsor issues a Form DS-2019 or successor form
extending an alien's program end date for any reason, including for a
request for reinstatement, academic training, change of program, or
program extension or the alien requires additional time to complete his
or her program.
(A) Form. To request an extension of stay, an alien in J status
must file an extension of stay application on the form and in the
manner designated by USCIS, including submitting the valid Form DS-2019
or successor form, appearing for any biometrics collection required by
8 CFR 103.16, and remitting the appropriate fee.
(B) Timely filing. An extension of stay application is considered
timely filed if the receipt date, pursuant to 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7), is on
or before the date the authorized admission period expires. USCIS must
receive the extension of stay application on or before the expiration
of the authorized period of admission, which includes the 30-day period
of preparation for departure. If the extension application is received
during the 30-day period provided in paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(C) of this
section following the completion of the exchange visitor program, the
alien in J-1 status may continue to participate in his or her exchange
visitor program.
(C) Length of extensions. Subject to the restrictions in the
regulations at 22 CFR part 62, extensions of stay may be granted for a
period up to the length of the program, as listed on the Form DS-2019,
or successor form, not to exceed 4-years, unless the J-1 exchange
visitor is otherwise restricted by regulations at 22 CFR part 62. The
30-day period before the indicated report date or program start date
and 30 additional days following the program end date or the maximum
period of admission do not count towards the maximum length of an
extension.
(D) Late requests for extension of current program end date. If the
responsible officer must update the program status or program end date
for an exchange visitor after the program end date listed on the most
recent Form DS-2019 (or its successor), the sponsor is required to
submit the necessary correction or reinstatement in the manner and
timeframe required by the Department of State. Once the record is
corrected or reinstated, the J-1 exchange visitor must submit a request
for an extension of stay to USCIS within 30 days of the status update.
(E) Dependents. A J-2 spouse and unmarried children under the age
of 21 seeking to accompany the J-1 exchange visitor during the
additional period of admission must either be included on the primary
applicant's request for extension or file their own extension of stay
applications on the form designated by USCIS, including any biometrics
required by 8 CFR 103.16. USCIS must receive the extension of stay
applications on or before the expiration of the previously authorized
period of admission, including the 30-day period following the
completion of the program provided in paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(C) of this
section, as indicated on the J-2 dependent's Form I-94 or successor
form. J-2 dependents must demonstrate the qualifying relationship with
the principal J-1 exchange visitor, be maintaining status, and not have
engaged in any unauthorized employment. Extensions of stay for J-2
dependents may not exceed the authorized admission period of the
principal J-1 exchange visitor.
(F) Denials. If an alien's extension of stay application is denied,
and the alien's authorized admission period has expired, he or she and
his or her dependents must immediately depart the United States.
(v) Employment of J-2 dependents. The accompanying spouse or
unmarried children under the age of 21 of a J-1 exchange visitor may
only engage in employment if authorized by USCIS. The employment
authorization is valid only if the J-1 is maintaining status, and the
J-2 employment authorization dates may not exceed the J-1 principal
alien's authorized stay as indicated on Form I-94. An application for
employment authorization must be filed in the manner prescribed by
USCIS, together with the required fee and any additional evidence
required in the filing instructions. Income from the J-2 dependent's
employment may be used to support the family's customary recreational
and cultural activities and related travel, among other things.
Employment will not be authorized if this income is needed to support
the J-1 principal exchange visitor. If the requested period of
employment authorization exceeds the current admission period, the J-2
dependent must file an extension of stay application or be included in
the J-1 principal's extension of stay application, in addition to the
application for employment authorization, in the manner designated by
USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance with form instructions.
(vi) Automatic extension of J-1 authorized period of stay and grant
of
[[Page 45130]]
employment authorization for aliens who are the beneficiaries of a cap-
subject H-1B petition. USCIS may, by notification in the Federal
Register, at any time it determines that the H-1B numerical limitation
as described in section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Act will likely be reached
prior to the end of a current fiscal year, extend for such a period of
time as deemed necessary to complete the adjudication of the H-1B
petition, the status of any J-1 alien on behalf of whom an employer has
timely filed an H-1B petition requesting change of status. The alien,
in accordance with 8 CFR part 248, must not have violated the terms of
his or her nonimmigrant stay and not be subject to the 2-year foreign
residence requirement at section 212(e) of the Act. Any J-1 exchange
visitor whose status has been extended shall be considered to be
maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status for all purposes under the Act,
provided that the alien does not violate the terms and conditions of
his or her J nonimmigrant stay. An extension made under this paragraph
(j)(1)(vi) also applies to the J-2 dependent alien.
(vii) Pending extension of stay applications and employment
authorization. (A) An alien whose J-1 status, as indicated on the
alien's Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, has expired but who has
timely filed an extension of stay application is authorized to continue
engaging in authorized employment and activities consistent with
pursuing the terms and conditions of the alien's program objectives and
including authorized training, beginning on the day after the admission
period expires, for a period of up to 240 days as provided in 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20). Notwithstanding 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), an alien whose J-
1 status, as indicated on the alien's Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-
94, has expired but who has timely filed an extension of stay
application on or before March 18, 2027, is authorized to continue
engaging in authorized employment and activities consistent with
pursuing the terms and conditions of the alien's program objectives,
including authorized training and activities pursuant to a new or
transferred program, while the extension of stay application is pending
with USCIS, not to exceed the program end date on the Form DS-2019 (or
successor form) filed with the pending application. Such authorization
may be subject to any conditions and limitations of the initial
authorization. If the extension of stay application remains pending
beyond the Form DS-2019 (or successor form) end date filed with the
application, the alien, whose status has expired, may remain in the
United States and continue engaging in activities consistent with
pursuing the terms and conditions of the alien's program objectives and
including authorized training, but not including employment, so long as
the extension of stay application is pending and he or she has filed a
subsequent extension of stay request with a Form DS-2019 (or successor
form) indicating an end date beyond the Form DS-2019 (or successor
form) end date requested in the preceding extension of stay request.
DHS reserves the discretion to extend the period permitting an alien in
J-1 status to continue engaging in activities consistent with pursuing
the terms and conditions of the alien's program objectives and
including authorized training, up to the end date of the Form DS-2019
(or successor form) so long as the extension of stay application is
pending, beyond March 18, 2027, in 6-month increments by publication of
a notification in the Federal Register. Consistent with paragraph
(j)(1)(iv)(E) of this section, the denial of an extension of stay
application requires the alien to cease activities and depart the
United States immediately.
(B) The facially expired Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, or
successor form of an alien described in paragraph (j)(1)(vii)(A) of
this section is considered unexpired when combined with a USCIS receipt
notice indicating receipt of a timely filed extension of stay
application and a valid Form DS-2019, or successor form, indicating the
duration of the program. An application is considered timely filed if
the receipt notice for the application is on or before the date the
admission period expires. Such extension may not exceed the earlier of
240 days, as provided in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), or for those extension
of stay applications filed on or before March 18, 2027, the end date of
the Form DS-2019 (or successor form) filed with the application, or the
date of denial of the alien's application for an extension of stay.
(C) An alien in J-2 status whose admission period has expired (as
indicated on his or her Form I-94) may not engage in employment until
USCIS approves his or her application for employment authorization.
(viii) Use of SEVIS. The use of the Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System (SEVIS) is mandatory for designated program
sponsors. All designated program sponsors must issue a SEVIS Form DS-
2019 to any exchange visitor requiring a reportable action (e.g.,
program extensions and requests for employment authorization), or for
any aliens who must obtain a new nonimmigrant J visa. As of 2003, the
records of all current or continuing exchange visitors must be entered
in SEVIS.
(ix) Current name and address. A J-1 exchange visitor must inform
DHS and the responsible officer of the exchange visitor program of any
legal changes to his or her name or of any change of address within 10
calendar days of the change, in a manner prescribed by the program
sponsor. A J-1 exchange visitor enrolled in a SEVIS program can satisfy
the reporting requirement in 8 CFR 265.1 by providing a notice of a
change of address within 10 calendar days to the responsible officer,
who in turn shall enter the information in SEVIS within 10 business
days of notification by the exchange visitor. In cases where an
exchange visitor provides the sponsor a mailing address that is
different than his or her actual physical address, he or she is
responsible for providing the sponsor his or her actual physical
location of residence. The exchange visitor program sponsor is
responsible for maintaining a record of, and must provide upon request
from DHS, the actual physical location where the exchange visitor
resides.
* * * * *
(6) Severability. The provisions in this paragraph (j) are intended
to be independent severable parts. In the event that any provision in
this paragraph (j) is not implemented, DHS intends that the remaining
provisions be implemented as an independent rule.
* * * * *
PART 248--CHANGE OF NONIMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION
0
4. The authority citation for part 248 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1184, 1258; 8 CFR part 2.
0
5. Section 248.1 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (g); and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (e) and paragraph (f).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 248.1 Eligibility.
* * * * *
(e) Admission of aliens under section 101(a)(15)(F) and (J)
previously granted duration of status. Aliens who were granted a change
to F or J status prior to September 15, 2026, and who departed the
United States and are applying for admission on or after September 15,
2026, will be inspected and may be admitted into the United States up
to the program end date as noted on the Form I-20 or Form DS-
[[Page 45131]]
2019 not to exceed a period of 4 years. To be admitted into the United
States, all aliens must be eligible for the requested status and
possess the proper documentation, including a valid passport, valid
nonimmigrant visa, if required, and valid Form I-20 or Form DS-2019 or
successor form.
(f) Abandonment of change of status application. If an alien timely
files an application to change to another nonimmigrant status but
departs the United States while the application is pending, USCIS will
consider the change of status application abandoned.
* * * * *
PART 274a--CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS
0
6. The authority citation for part 274a continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1105a, 1324a; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 28
U.S.C. 2461; 8 CFR part 2.
0
7. Section 274a.12 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(6)(v):
0
i. Removing the words ``duration of'''; and
0
ii. Removing the citation ``8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vi)'' and adding, in its
place, the citation ``8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vii)''; and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(10) and (c)(3)(iii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 274a.12 Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(10) An alien who is a foreign information media representative in
I status under 8 CFR 214.2(i) may be employed pursuant to the
requirements of 8 CFR 214.2(i). Employment authorization does not
extend to the dependents of a foreign information media representative.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Is seeking employment because of severe economic hardship
pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(C) and has an Employment
Authorization Document, Form I-766 or successor form, based on severe
economic hardship pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(C), and whose
timely filed application for employment authorization and application
for extension of stay, both filed on applicable forms and in the manner
designated by USCIS, with the required fees, as described in the form's
instructions, are pending, is authorized to engage in employment
beginning on the expiration date of the Employment Authorization
Document issued under paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of this section and ending
on the date of USCIS' written decision on the current Application for
Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form, but not to
exceed 240 days. For this same period, such Employment Authorization
Document, Form I-766 or successor form, is automatically extended and
is considered unexpired when combined with a Certificate of Eligibility
for Nonimmigrant (F-1/M-1) Students, Form I-20 or successor form,
endorsed by the Designated School Official recommending such an
extension.
* * * * *
Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2026-14439 Filed 7-16-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 911-CB-P