Impact of Trump Administration's Policies on International Students

The Trump administration implemented several policies impacting international students, sparking debates over national security, economic contributions, and academic freedom. These policies, developed during President Trump’s term, involved proposed caps on F and J visas, which affect international students, short-term college instructors, and researchers.

Restrictions on Visas and Oversight

The Trump administration's focus on international students was not new, as similar caps on F and J visas were proposed during the last year of President Trump's first term. President Trump expressed that while he wanted great students in the country, he didn't want students who were causing trouble. He also stated that some people who wanted to attend universities like Harvard couldn't get in because of the presence of foreign students.

President Trump also mentioned waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard to determine how many radicalized lunatics and troublemakers should not be allowed back into the Country. Harvard has also developed extensive entanglements with foreign adversaries, receiving more than $150 million from China alone.

Proposed Rule on "Duration of Status"

One of the most significant proposals was the elimination of "duration of status" for F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed rule to this effect on August 28. Previously, international students could remain in lawful status as long as they were pursuing an academic program. The new rule sought to establish a fixed four-year period for F-1 and J-1 visa holders, with limited exceptions.

Implications of the Fixed Admission Period

The four-year limit could pose challenges for many international students. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics indicates a median of 52 months (4.3 years) to complete a bachelor’s degree, while the National Science Foundation reports a median of 5.7 years for completing a Ph.D.

Read also: International Students Fight Back

Under the proposed rule, current international students would be allowed to remain in duration of status but cannot exceed four years from the date the rule becomes final without seeking an extension of status or EOS. The same would apply to J-1 exchange visitors.

Restrictions on Program Changes

The proposed rule also placed restrictions on changing programs or educational objectives, particularly within the first academic year. An F-1 student below the graduate degree level may not change programs, majors, or educational levels within the first academic year of a program of study, unless an exception is authorized. Exceptions may be approved in circumstances such as a school closure or a school’s prolonged inability to hold in-person classes due to a natural disaster or other causes, like a pandemic. Additionally, an F-1 student at the graduate degree level or above may not change programs at any point during a program of study, according to the new DHS policy.

An alien who has completed a program in the United States as an F-1 nonimmigrant at one educational level may not maintain, be admitted, or otherwise be provided F-1 status through a program at the same educational level or a lower educational level.

Impact on OPT and STEM OPT

The proposed rule also affected how international students obtain the ability to work on Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM OPT. Under the proposed rule, F-1 students would have to file for an extension of F-1 status to be eligible for OPT. People on OPT would have to file an extension of F-1 status to get the STEM OPT extension.

People working on OPT or STEM OPT before the rule becomes final would not have to file for an extension of stay to remain on OPT or STEM OPT.

Read also: Michigan Student Visa Changes

Deference to Prior USCIS Determinations

Trump officials included in the proposed rule on duration of status a sneak attack that eliminates the deference provision by cloaking the significant change in bureaucratic language.

As Nancy Morowitz of Fragomen told me in an interview, the current 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5) with the discretion language states: “Deference to prior USCIS determinations of eligibility. When adjudicating a request filed on Form I-129 involving the same parties and the same underlying facts, USCIS gives deference to its prior determination of the petitioner’s, applicant's, or beneficiary's eligibility. However, USCIS need not give deference to a prior approval if: there was a material error involved with a prior approval; there has been a material change in circumstances or eligibility requirements; or there is new, material information that adversely impacts the petitioner's, applicant's, or beneficiary's eligibility.”

That section would be replaced with the proposed: “(5) Decisions for extension of stay applications. Where an applicant or petitioner demonstrates eligibility for a requested extension, it may be granted at USCIS's discretion. The denial of an application for extension of stay may not be appealed.”

Exceptions to Extend Stays

The proposed rule allowed international students to obtain an extension of stay under certain conditions. USCIS may grant an extension of stay to an F-1 student who has maintained his or her F-1 status, but who is unable to complete his or her program by the end of his or her authorized period of admission.

The rule lists three valid reasons for obtaining an extension:

Read also: Impact of Trump on Student Debt

A compelling academic reason, such as a change of major or research topic or unexpected research problems.
A documented illness or medical condition that is a compelling medical reason, such as a serious injury, that is supported by medical documentation.
Circumstances beyond the student’s control, including a natural disaster, national health crisis, or the closure of an institution.

National Security Concerns

DHS argued that the proposed rule would have qualitative benefits for national security by providing DHS additional opportunities to evaluate whether F, J, and I nonimmigrants are complying with their status requirements or if they present a national security concern. DHS cited cases of Chinese nationals who entered on J-1 visas and whose actions, the department believed, represented national security threats.

DHS places significant confidence in the extension approval process to protect against threats. As with F nonimmigrants, setting the length of the J nonimmigrant’s specific program to not exceed a 4-year period would establish a mechanism for immigration officers to assess these nonimmigrants at defined periods (such as when applying for an EOS in the United States beyond a 4-year admission period) and determine whether they are complying with the conditions of their classification.

Criticism and Concerns

Educators and immigration advocates raised several concerns about the proposed rule. Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, stated that the proposed rule is yet another unnecessary and counterproductive action aimed against international students and scholars. She believed that by forcing students to submit additional applications, the rule would impose significant burdens on students, colleges and universities, and USCIS, which already has extensive immigration backlogs.

Some educators viewed the proposed rule as an example of government overreach, giving USCIS oversight over decisions that have long been the domain of academia. The proposal represents a dangerous overreach by government into academia, as it would give USCIS oversight over decisions that have long been the domain of academia, including changes to a student’s course of study and to their level of study.

tags: #Trump #administration #international #students #policy