-
Original Date Announced
August 28, 2025DHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for a change in admission period for F, J, and I nonimmigrants, from "duration of status" to "admission for a fixed period." This notice revives a 2020 proposal from the first Trump administration.
The change would "require all F, J, and I nonimmigrants who wish to remain in the United States beyond their specific authorized admission period to apply for authorization to extend their stay with USCIS if in the United States, thus requiring periodic assessments by DHS in order for the alien to remain in the United States for a longer period."
Currently, F, J, and I nonimmigrants are admitted for duration of status, i.e., for the duration of time they comply with their nonimmigrant category. The notice of proposed rulemaking allows 30 days of public comments until September 29, 2025.
Trump 2.0 [ID #1940]
2025.08.28 DHS - Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information MediaCurrent Status
NoneOriginal Trump Policy Status
Status: ProposedTrump Administration Action: RuleSubject Matter: Non-Immigrant Visas: Student Non-Immigrant VisasAssociated or Derivative Policies
Documents
Trump-Era Policy Documents
- New Policy
-
Commentary
Original Source:
Members of Congress - Comment Opposing Proposed Rule
To provide information, corrections, or feedback, please email IPTP.feedback@gmail.com
To provide information, corrections, or feedback, please email IPTP.feedback@gmail.com
Commentary
2025.09.29 Members of Congress - Comment Opposing Proposed Rule
35 members of Congress submitted a comment in opposition to DHS's proposed rule. The representatives note that DHS failed to provide adequate justification for and warn that the rule will heavily burden USCIS, an agency with millions of cases backlogged. The comment also states that DHS overlooked the rule's economic and operational impact on USCIS, relied on flawed assumptions to limit admission periods, and downplayed the rule's economic effects on higher-education institutions.
Go to article