A coalition of higher education associations and labor unions filed suit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Aug. 18, seeking to block a rule that would eliminate “duration of status,” the four-decade-old system allowing international students and exchange visitors to remain in the U.S. for the length of their academic program rather than a fixed term.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, names DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, and Acting ICE Director David Venturella as defendants. Plaintiffs include the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, the American Federation of Teachers, and several affiliated unions representing graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and foreign journalists.
The final rule, published July 17 and set to take effect Sept. 15, would replace duration of status with fixed admission periods capped at four years for F-1 student and J-1 exchange visitor visas, and 240 days for I-1 visas held by foreign media representatives. Anyone needing more time would have to apply for a discretionary extension from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The rule also bars graduate students from switching academic programs, prevents students from pursuing a new degree at the same or a lower level after finishing one, and cuts the post-graduation grace period for F-1 students from 60 to 30 days.
The lawsuit argues the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is “arbitrary and capricious,” rests on an inadequate cost-benefit analysis, and was adopted without a meaningful response to the roughly 22,000 public comments DHS received. According to the complaint, DHS quantified hundreds of millions of dollars in annual compliance costs but declined to put a number on the rule’s biggest expected cost — a drop in international student enrollment — even after commenters cited research estimating that eliminating duration of status could cost the economy $72 billion to $145 billion a year within a decade.
Plaintiffs also contend that DHS’s stated justifications, national security and preventing visa fraud, rely on a small number of anecdotal cases rather than evidence of any systemic problem. The complaint notes that DHS’s own data showed roughly 2,100 people, or about 0.067% of F-1 entrants between 2000 and 2010, remained in extended student status — a rate the plaintiffs argue is too marginal to justify overhauling a system affecting more than two million nonimmigrants a year.
The suit further claims DHS gave the public only 32 days to comment on the proposed rule, well short of the 60-day period recommended by executive order for significant regulations, and that the agency’s near-year-long delay before finalizing the rule undercuts its stated urgency. A separate count argues the rule exceeds DHS’s statutory authority by creating a category of visa ineligibility not found in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw said in a statement that the rule “will severely undermine the contributions international students make to U.S. campuses, economies and national security.” Presidents’ Alliance CEO Miriam Feldblum said the coalition is “going to court to protect international students and scholars.”
A hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Sept. 3 before U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, less than two weeks before the rule’s effective date.
