Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Four-Year Limit on International Student Visas
Washington — A federal judge has temporarily blocked a Trump administration rule that would have imposed a four-year limit on international student visas, providing relief to foreign students and researchers, including thousands from India.
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the U.S. District Court in Boston issued a nationwide preliminary injunction Monday, one day before the Department of Homeland Security rule was scheduled to take effect.
The regulation would have replaced the longstanding “duration of status” system, which allows foreign students to remain in the United States while they are enrolled in an authorized academic program.
Under the proposed rule, students whose programs lasted longer than four years would have been required to apply for an extension from immigration authorities. It also would have restricted students’ ability to change academic programs, transfer universities or pursue another degree at the same level without approval.
The changes also would have affected visiting scholars and foreign journalists.
Saylor called the government’s justification for the rule “exceptionally weak,” saying the existing system had contributed to “groundbreaking research in science, medicine, and technology, substantial economic growth.”
If implemented, the restrictions could cause harm to the economy and higher education institutions that “is likely to be catastrophic,” he wrote.
“Immigrants to the United States who attended American universities have been named as inventors on a disproportionate number of patents and have been awarded a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes,” Saylor wrote.
The government argued that the current system was outdated and needed to be changed to “safeguard national security.”
Saylor acknowledged that the system was “not without its problems,” but said the administration was seeking to “substantially restrict the overall number of foreign students, researchers, professors, and journalists in the United States.”
“The government’s contention that the rule is necessary to safeguard national security borders on the absurd,” he wrote.
The lawsuit was brought by higher education organizations and labor unions, including the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts.
The plaintiffs argued that the rule imposed an arbitrary deadline and would make it more difficult for universities to attract international students and researchers.
The Department of Homeland Security defended the policy after the lawsuit was filed.
“Where was the outrage when foreign nationals were abusing the system, violating the terms of their student visas, and making a mockery of our immigration laws?” a department spokesperson said at the time.
The rule was expected to have a particularly significant effect on doctoral students. National Science Foundation data cited in reports showed that doctoral programs take a median of 5.7 years to complete.
Saylor also raised concerns about giving immigration officials greater authority over academic decisions.
“Moreover, it is not difficult to imagine how that system might be abused to punish those whose viewpoints or research are disfavored by the officials making the decision — or, indeed, punish disfavored institutions,” he wrote.
Nearly 22,000 public comments were submitted on the regulation, with most opposing it. The next court hearing is scheduled for October 2.
International applications submitted through the Common Application have fallen 10 percent during the latest admissions cycle, while doctoral applications have declined 21 percent, according to figures cited by NAFSA.
The preliminary injunction does not permanently strike down the regulation. It keeps the current system in place while the court considers the case, and the administration may appeal the ruling. (Source: IANS)
