The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has revived a controversial proposal from 2020 that would dramatically change how international students, exchange visitors, and information media representatives are admitted into the United States. This week, DHS submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a proposed regulation that would eliminate the long-standing “Duration of Status” (D/S) admission period for individuals in F, J, and I nonimmigrant classifications. Instead, DHS seeks to impose fixed periods of stay, subject to extension requests filed directly with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Form I-539.
Under current rules, individuals in D/S categories are admitted for the full length of their academic or exchange program, as indicated by their program sponsors (e.g., universities or sponsoring organizations). They are permitted to remain in the U.S. so long as they maintain their underlying status, with schools and sponsors updating the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) as required. The D/S model has long allowed flexibility for legitimate variations in program duration and has kept administrative burden relatively low for students, schools, and employers alike.
The proposed change would replace this flexible system with a fixed admission period, typically capped at four years for most F and J visa holders. However, DHS may impose two-year limits in cases where the applicant is from a country with a visa overstay rate exceeding 10%, is attending a school not certified by E-Verify, or is participating in a program that lacks accreditation. For I visa holders—primarily foreign media representatives—the initial period of stay would generally be limited to 240 days, with a reduced 90-day period for citizens of China and Hong Kong. Extensions of stay would require formal USCIS filings and biometrics appointments.
This proposed rule also redefines how unlawful presence is calculated. Previously, D/S visa holders did not begin accruing unlawful presence unless a USCIS officer or immigration judge formally determined a status violation. Under the new framework, individuals who remain in the U.S. beyond the expiration of their I-94 admission period would begin accruing unlawful presence immediately. This would trigger potential 3- or 10-year bars to reentry.
The rationale behind DHS’s push for this change is rooted in program integrity, national security, and oversight. In its original 2020 version of the rule, DHS emphasized the need to better track and control the activities of nonimmigrants, particularly in the academic space. The agency cited concerns about fraud, abuse of student status, and the potential for espionage or other security threats. Fixed admission periods, DHS argues, would bring these categories into alignment with the majority of U.S. nonimmigrant visas, which operate under clearly defined expiration dates.
Yet the proposal has met consistent resistance from academic institutions, business leaders, and legal experts who warn of significant unintended consequences. Critics argue that requiring students and scholars to seek repeated extensions with USCIS will overburden an already strained agency, introduce delays that could interrupt educational and employment programs, and make the U.S. less competitive in attracting global talent. For HR and legal teams, the administrative complexity and uncertainty introduced by this rule could disrupt workforce planning, particularly for F-1 students transitioning to Optional Practical Training (OPT) and eventually to H-1B status.
If finalized, the new rule would also reduce the post-completion grace period for F-1 students from 60 to 30 days, further narrowing the window during which graduates may prepare for the next stage of work or travel.
Next steps involve a formal review by the OMB, followed by publication in the Federal Register and a 60-day public comment period. Stakeholders—including employers, universities, and affected individuals—will have the opportunity to submit feedback. DHS will then decide whether to finalize the rule, revise it, or withdraw it entirely.
We recommend that HR and legal departments begin reviewing current employees or prospective hires who may be affected by this proposed change. Early scenario planning and comment preparation will be key in managing both compliance and strategic workforce implications. If your organization would like help preparing public comments or understanding how this proposal could affect your nonimmigrant populations, our team is available for consultation.
For more information, view the original DHS proposal (2020 version): Federal Register Link