The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is reviewing the final draft of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulation that would end the current "duration of status" (D/S) policy for F (foreign students), J (exchange visitors), and I (representatives of foreign information media) visa holders. OMB review is the last step before a regulation can be finalized. Once approved, DHS will publish the rule in the Federal Register along with its responses to public comments.

Under the current policy, nonimmigrants admitted with D/S do not have a fixed end date printed on Form I-94, the Arrival/Departure Record. They may remain in the United States for as long as they maintain the conditions of their status. The new rule would change that framework.

DHS proposed the rule on August 28, 2025, in the Federal Register. Its key provisions would:

• Set a fixed period of authorized stay for F, J, and I nonimmigrants, with procedures for transitioning away from D/S;
• Cap authorized admission and extension periods for F and J nonimmigrants at the program length, not to exceed four years;
• Bar F-1 graduate students from changing programs at any point during a program of study;
• Require F-1 students who have completed a program at one educational level to move only to a higher level, prohibiting changes to the same or a lower level;
• Cut the grace period for F-1 students to prepare for departure after completing studies or post-completion practical training from 60 days to 30 days;
• Require biometric collection with Extension of Stay (EOS) applications;
• Limit language-training students to an aggregate 24-month period of stay;
• Replace D/S for I visa holders with a fixed period tied to completing their assignments, capped at 240 days, with EOS available;
• Codify the definition of a foreign media organization for I status.

DHS stated the change supports the integrity of the F, J, and I programs, facilitates applicant vetting, and aligns the visa categories with the statutory scheme. The rule revives a similar proposal from the first Trump administration in 2020, which the Biden administration rescinded in July 2021.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) submitted a comment supporting the rule. CIS argued that the D/S policy undermines statutory objectives, including the penalty scheme of IIRIRA, because DHS cannot easily determine when F, J, or I holders begin accruing unlawful presence for the three- and 10-year bars under INA § 212(a)(9)(B). CIS also said D/S weakens system integrity by limiting DHS tracking ability and creating openings for exploitation, citing "pay-to-stay" schemes in which school officials falsely report that non-attending F-1 students maintain their status.

CIS and DHS have documented cases where designated school officials (DSOs) "intentionally recorded a student's status inaccurately; … issued program extensions to students who did not have a compelling medical or academic reasons for failing to complete their program by its end date, and … permitted students who failed to maintain status to transfer to another school rather than apply for reinstatement."

DHS data cited in the proposal show that at least 2,134 aliens who entered under the F program between 2000 and 2010 remained active in F-1 status as of April 2026 — a stay of 16 to 26 years. DHS acknowledged that "under the current D/S framework, DHS might not detect an individual status violation for an extended period if the alien stays enrolled in a school, does not seek readmission to the United States, and does not apply for additional immigration benefits."

Critics argue DHS lacks the adjudicatory resources to implement the change and warn of heavier administrative burdens on the agency and nonimmigrants. Suggested mitigations include phasing in the fixed-time policy starting with higher-risk cohorts, strengthening the SEVIS reporting system, expanding digitization, and eliminating the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program.

The proposed policy also shifts oversight of foreign students away from universities back to DHS as the primary monitor. Agencies sometimes revise regulatory language after considering public comments, so the final rule's terms may differ from the proposal. Affected visa holders and institutions should follow the Federal Register publication for the definitive requirements.