College Groups Sue DHS Over Four-Year Admission Rule for International Students

Higher education groups and labor unions sued the Department of Homeland Security on Aug. 18 to block a new immigration rule that would end “duration of status” for international students and replace it with fixed admission periods capped at four years in many cases.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the lawsuit seeks to stop the regulation before its scheduled Sept. 15 effective date. The policy applies to F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors and foreign media representatives in I status, while also imposing new restrictions on how some international students may change or continue their academic programs.

For decades, many people in those categories have been admitted for duration of status rather than until a fixed date. An F-1 student, for example, may generally remain in the United States while properly pursuing an approved course of study and complying with immigration requirements.

Under the replacement framework, F and J nonimmigrants would generally be admitted through the expected end of their program, with most stays capped at four years. Foreign media representatives would generally receive admission periods of up to 240 days. Anyone needing additional time could be required to apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for an extension.

The regulation also cuts the F-1 departure grace period from 60 days to 30 days, restricts some transfers and program changes, and generally bars students who complete one degree from beginning another program at the same or a lower educational level.

Longer degree programs are one of the challengers’ main concerns. Their filings cite data showing that research doctorates commonly take more than five years to complete, meaning many students could need federal approval to remain long enough to finish programs they had already begun.

DHS says fixed admission periods will give immigration officials more opportunities to directly review compliance with immigration requirements. The department has also cited fraud, overstays, program abuse and national security concerns as reasons for replacing duration of status.

The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators and six other education and labor organizations argue the department failed to sufficiently connect those concerns to the scope of the new framework. According to the complaint, DHS relied heavily on isolated examples while adopting changes affecting millions of students, exchange visitors, and foreign media representatives.

Much of the challenge rests on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and defend regulations. Under the APA, courts review whether an agency considered important evidence and reasonably explained the connection between the problem it identified and the policy it adopted.

The groups claim DHS fell short of that standard by inadequately weighing costs, rejecting less burdensome alternatives, and failing to sufficiently address significant concerns raised during the rulemaking process. Their argument asks the court to focus on the agency’s decision-making process and the reasoning supporting the final rule.

Public participation provides another basis for the lawsuit. DHS allowed 32 days for comments on the proposed regulation and received nearly 22,000 responses. The organizations argue universities and other affected parties needed more time to analyze the proposal and gather supporting data.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies using notice-and-comment rulemaking to provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation. The challengers also point to Executive Order 12866, which states that significant regulations generally should provide at least 60 days for comments, and argue the size and complexity of the proposal warranted a longer period.

Another claim focuses on the scope of DHS’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Congress established the requirements for F-1 student status, while federal agencies have authority to issue regulations administering those requirements.

According to the complaint, the new academic progression restrictions go beyond that authority by generally preventing students who complete one degree from pursuing another at the same or a lower academic level. The court will consider whether that restriction falls within DHS’s regulatory power under the immigration statute.

The organizations have asked the court to stay the regulation while the case proceeds and alternatively seek preliminary relief blocking enforcement. They ultimately want the rule vacated. The regulation remains scheduled to take effect Sept. 15, and the challenge remains pending in federal court in Massachusetts.