US education groups slam DHS rule ending ‘duration of status’ for international students
Two leading US higher education organizations have strongly condemned the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) final rule ending the long-standing “Duration of Status” (D/S) policy for international students and exchange visitors, warning that it will create unnecessary bureaucracy, undermine academic decision-making and make the US less attractive to global talent.The final rule eliminates the D/S framework for F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors. Under the existing system, international students and exchange visitors could remain in the US for as long as they maintained their academic or exchange status. It is being replaced with fixed periods of admission f(our years with shorter tenure in certain cases such as for English language students), requiring students and scholars whose programmes extend beyond the prescribed period to apply to DHS for extensions of stay. The rule also requires approval for extending an academic programme, changing majors or pursuing the next level of study.NAFSA: Association of International Educators described the regulation as “a misguided and unnecessary policy shift” that injects “uncertainty, bureaucracy, and fear into a system that has long worked effectively.”“It is a solution in search of a problem,” said Fanta Aw, Executive Director and CEO of NAFSA, arguing that international students and exchange visitors are already among the most closely monitored non-immigrant populations in the US through the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and existing partnerships between educational institutions and the federal government.Fanta Aw said the rule “introduces unnecessary government intrusion into academic decision-making” by requiring students and scholars to seek government approval to extend their academic programmes, change majors or pursue the next level of study, placing “life-changing educational decisions in the hands of an already overburdened immigration system—not educators, and not institutions.”She also criticized DHS for moving ahead with the regulation despite receiving more than 20,000 public comments raising concerns about the proposal. According to Fanta Aw, the rule will create more barriers for global talent without making the US “safer or stronger” and sends a message that the country is becoming “less welcoming, less predictable, and less committed” at a time of intense global competition for international students and scholars.The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration also opposed the regulation, calling on higher education institutions and stakeholders to take action against the policy and urging Congress to protect the Duration of Status framework through legislation.“The rule imposes unnecessary burdens on international students and scholars, campuses, employers and federal agencies alike. It is counterproductive and will ultimately harm our economy and global competitiveness,” said Zuzana C. Wootson, Deputy Director of Federal Policy at the Presidents’ Alliance.Wootson described the rule as “unnecessary and duplicative,” noting that international students are already subject to rigorous oversight by both DHS and academic institutions.She warned that the regulation would exacerbate existing immigration application backlogs, create further uncertainty, intrude on academic decision-making and impose new bureaucratic hurdles that would deter international students, researchers and scholars from choosing the US.The Presidents’ Alliance said international students, scholars and exchange visitors contribute economically, intellectually and culturally to American society, drive innovation, create jobs and advance groundbreaking research. It argued that their period of admission should align with the requirements of their academic programmes rather than fixed immigration timelines.The organization added that, at a time when international student enrollment is already declining, the US should be welcoming talented students and researchers instead of creating new barriers that limit opportunity and innovation.Both organizations urged policymakers to reconsider the rule, arguing that it shifts academic decision-making away from educational institutions to immigration authorities while increasing paperwork and uncertainty for international students without strengthening oversight or national security.
