On September 14, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction postponing the effective date of the Department of Homeland Security final rule that would have replaced the “duration of status” (D/S) framework for F, J and I visa holders. The rule had been scheduled to take effect the next day, September 15.
For now, the D/S system stays in place. F and J holders continue to be admitted for as long as they comply with the terms of their program rather than until a fixed, date-certain deadline.
As CUPA-HR reported when DHS finalized the rule in July, the measure would have ended open-ended admission for F (academic student), J (exchange visitor), and I (foreign media representative) visa holders. In its place, F and J holders would be admitted for a fixed period tied to program length, capped at four years per admission period, with I holders capped at 240 days. To stay beyond that date, students, exchange visitors, and media representatives would have to file an extension of stay (EOS) application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) before their current period expired. Additionally, the post-completion grace period for F holders would drop from 60 days to 30 days, and new limits would apply to academic mobility, including restrictions on transferring schools and changing programs or educational levels.
DHS received close to 22,000 comments on the proposal. The plaintiffs, a coalition of higher education associations, colleges, and labor organizations led by the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration and NAFSA, challenged the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court agreed they were likely to succeed, finding the rule “arbitrary and capricious” in several respects. Among other things, the court concluded that DHS:
- Did not conduct a reasoned analysis of the rule’s costs and benefits, and in particular declined to quantify the cost of restricting international student enrollment, research and teaching by international individuals, and press nonimmigrant travel.
- Did not meaningfully weigh less burdensome alternatives, such as strengthening the SEVIS system or tying fixed admission periods to actual program length.
- Did not respond substantively to significant public comments.
- Did not establish a rational connection between the rule and its stated goals of protecting national security and preventing fraud and abuse.
The court also found that the rule would cause irreparable harm, pointing to international students who had already withdrawn from U.S. programs and to institutions reporting steep drops in international applications, including one university that reported a 42% decline this academic year.
The court applied its order nationwide rather than limiting relief to the parties in the case, reasoning that a party-specific order would force the government to run parallel regulatory systems and create confusion.
The preliminary injunction does not conclude litigation. The court postponed the rule’s effective date under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act while the litigation continues, but it declined for now to vacate the rule outright. Depending on how the case is ultimately resolved, the rule could still take effect at a later date. DHS is also expected to appeal the decision soon.
CUPA-HR will continue to track the litigation and provide updates as the case moves forward.