DHS Revives Fixed-Term U.S. Student Visas, Replacing “Duration of Status” in 2025

Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes are standardized six-digit codes used to categorize academic programs by field of study. Developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, CIP codes create a common taxonomy for all college and university programs. Every degree or major – from Computer Science to Mechanical Engineering to English Literature – is assigned a CIP code that corresponds to its subject area. Schools report these codes to the government for data tracking, and each international student’s Form I-20 lists the CIP code for their primary field of study. CIP codes also determine eligibility for certain benefits; for example, DHS maintains a list of CIP codes that qualify as STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) for extended Optional Practical Training. In short, CIP codes allow officials to identify what a student is studying, which can factor into visa regulations and extensions. (For instance, a language training program has its own CIP code and is treated differently under visa rules, as discussed later.)

The push to eliminate D/S and enforce fixed terms on student visas actually began under the Trump administration. In September 2020, DHS published a proposed rule to introduce a maximum period of stay for F, J, and I visas. It suggested most students would be admitted for up to 4 years, but certain others only 2 years based on factors like country of origin, security concerns, or program type. The rationale was to tighten immigration oversight: officials argued that open-ended student stays made it harder to monitor compliance and prevent visa overstays or misuse. DHS pointed to cases of individuals remaining in the U.S. for many years via successive programs and extensions – situations that, while often legal, “violate the spirit of the law” intended for temporary study. They also cited a desire to reduce national security risks by vetting certain students more frequently. However, that 2020 rule faced widespread opposition from universities and advocacy groups, and it was never implemented. In fact, the proposal was formally withdrawn in July 2021 after a change in administration.

Now in mid-2025, DHS has revived the fixed-term visa plan. On June 27, 2025, the agency submitted a new proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – the first step in the federal rulemaking process. While the exact details will only be known when it’s published, the 2025 proposal is expected to mirror much of the 2020 version. In essence, the Duration of Status admission – which currently allows F-1 students (and J, I visa holders) to stay as long as they maintain status in their program – would be replaced with a finite admission period for each visa holder. DHS officials under the current administration (which has signaled a tougher line on immigration) appear keen to finalize what was started five years ago. The agency’s regulatory agenda in late 2024 already telegraphed a return to this issue, and now formal action is underway.

Why change the system now? Supporters within DHS argue that a fixed term will compel students to stay on track and provide regular checkpoints for immigration authorities. Under D/S, a student’s legal status can continue for years with minimal direct oversight, as long as they remain enrolled. By instituting a definite expiration date on visas, DHS can require an additional review (through an extension application) if a student needs to stay longer. The agency also points to national security anecdotes – for example, cases of research scholars involved in sensitive fields – suggesting that periodic review could mitigate risks. Moreover, DHS notes that other visa categories (tourist, work visas, etc.) already have fixed time limits and accrue unlawful presence once they expire. Currently, F-1/J-1 students do not accrue unlawful presence just by staying past their program end date; they only accrue it if formally found in violation of status. Changing to fixed terms would put students on the same footing as other nonimmigrants, automatically penalizing those who overstay the new visa duration.

Critics counter that the change is a solution in search of a problem. Overstay rates among international students are relatively low – around 3.6% in 2023 for student/exchange visa holders. This suggests the vast majority leave on time or maintain legal status. Universities also argue that the D/S framework has worked well for decades, and that isolated security incidents are rare. Nonetheless, the DHS proposal is moving forward, and stakeholders are bracing for significant impacts if it becomes regulation.

Although the final rule is not yet published, the broad strokes can be drawn from the earlier 2020 proposal and recent reports:

• Typical Duration – An F-1 student would be admitted for a fixed number of years (commonly expected to be up to 4 years) or less. This timeframe might be tied to the normal length of a degree program (e.g. a 4-year bachelor’s, 2-year master’s). However, even if a degree usually takes 5+ years (as many PhDs do), the visa may still cap at 4 years initially. It remains to be seen if the rule will set one uniform duration or vary it.
• Two-Year Limit Cases – Certain students would only get a 2-year initial visa term. In 2020, DHS proposed this shorter period for individuals from specific countries with high visa overstay rates (over 10%), for those from nations designated as state sponsors of terrorism, and for students at schools that are not fully accredited or not participating in E-Verify employment verification. English language training programs would also be restricted – DHS planned to limit F-1 language students to an aggregate of 24 months of study, given concerns about abuse in that niche category. We will know once the rule is published if these same criteria (country of citizenship, school type, program type) are included again. These conditions could mean, for example, a student from a certain country might be admitted for 2 years at a time even if enrolled in a 4-year degree.
• Need for Extensions – Under the new system, if students need more time beyond their visa’s expiration to finish their program (which is common for many, especially at the graduate level), they would have to apply for an Extension of Stay with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This involves filing a form, paying a fee, and likely submitting biometrics (fingerprints) again, similar to the process that was outlined in the 2020 proposal. An extension request would need to be approved to avoid the student falling out of status. Multiple extensions could be possible in stages if a program runs very long. Notably, time spent in Optional Practical Training (OPT) after graduation might also require the student to still be within their authorized period or get an extension – a complication not present under D/S.
• Unlawful Presence – Perhaps the most consequential change: overstaying a student visa would immediately trigger unlawful presence accrual, as it does for other visa categories. Currently, F-1 and J-1 visa holders do not accumulate “unlawful presence” just because their I-94 has D/S with no fixed date – they only incur it if an immigration judge or officer formally finds a violation. Under a fixed-term regime, the day after the visa’s end date becomes the first day of unlawful presence if no extension or status change has been filed. Accruing more than 180 days of unlawful presence can lead to multi-year bans on re-entry. This raises the stakes dramatically for students and exchange visitors to track their status end dates and file timely extensions. Even a simple oversight or a delayed extension approval could jeopardize someone’s ability to return to the U.S..
• Departure Grace Period – The D/S system has long allowed a 60-day grace period for F-1 students to depart after completing studies. With fixed visas, DHS would likely still provide a short grace period (the 2020 rule mentioned 30 days) beyond the program or visa end date for departure or filing other paperwork. But it would be a tighter window than the flexible D/S scenario.

Real-world example: If a student is admitted for four years and is partway through a Ph.D. at the end of that period, they must apply for an extension to continue. If the extension is delayed or denied and the original stay expires, the student would immediately be out of status and accruing unlawful presence, despite still being enrolled. This is a stark change from the current model where maintaining enrollment is enough to stay in status indefinitely.

The proposed fixed-term visa rule has triggered alarm among universities, immigration lawyers, and international student advocates. Key concerns include:

• Administrative Burden: Students and schools would face significantly more paperwork and bureaucracy. Every extension of stay requires a new USCIS application, with fees (currently a few hundred dollars) and potentially long processing times. “This will create unnecessary delays, financial burden and legal uncertainty. It will add months of processing for even routine extensions,” warned one U.S. immigration attorney who works with students. University international offices, already stretched thin, might have to help thousands of students file extensions each year, an onerous task especially at large institutions.
• USCIS Backlogs: An influx of extension applications could strain USCIS. If hundreds of thousands of F-1 and J-1 holders suddenly need extensions every 2–4 years, processing times could balloon, creating a vicious cycle. DHS itself acknowledged that simultaneous filings could “significantly lengthen processing times” if not managed well. Delays are dangerous – if a student’s time runs out while an extension is still pending, they risk falling out of status. (There might be mechanisms to cover this gap, but details are unclear until the rule is final. In other visa categories, timely-filed extensions allow one to remain in the U.S. while pending, but travel and other activities can be complicated.)
• Risk of Status Violations: The margin for error would narrow. Missing an extension deadline or a paperwork mistake could result in accidental overstays. As noted, accruing unlawful presence due to a lapse could bar a student from re-entering the U.S. for years. Under D/S, such scenarios are largely avoided; under fixed terms, even well-intentioned students could be hit with major penalties for minor slip-ups. International student advisers worry this will create a climate of fear and confusion, where students are unsure of how long they can remain and constantly anxious about status expiration dates.
• Financial Costs: Beyond government filing fees, students might have to spend on lawyers to handle extensions or navigate any complications. There’s also the indirect cost of potentially needing to interrupt studies to depart the U.S. if an extension isn’t approved in time. Travel flexibility would diminish – currently, a student can travel abroad and return with a valid I-20 and visa stamp, even if they are in year 6 of a PhD, for example. In the future, a student nearing the end of a 4-year term might not risk traveling abroad until they secure an extension, for fear of being denied re-entry.
• Impact on Academics: Many educational programs don’t fit neatly into four-year boxes. PhD and research-based programs often run 5+ years. Some students need to go part-time for personal reasons, or take longer due to the nature of research. Forcing a rigid timeline could pressure students to rush their studies or forego opportunities (like double majors, research projects, or co-op internships that extend graduation). The rule might allow flexibility via extensions, but uncertainty around whether an extension will be granted could deter students from pursuing longer academic endeavors.

Universities and higher education groups have voiced that this change could harm the U.S.’s academic competitiveness. They argue it sends a message that international students are less welcome, and creates hurdles that could drive talented individuals to choose other countries. Even some policymakers note that international students contribute enormously (over 1.1 million students in the U.S. contribute more than $50 billion to the economy), and that onerous rules may undermine this positive impact.

DHS, for its part, will likely counter that extensions will be routinely approved for bona fide students and that the rule is aimed at preventing abuse. For instance, one target is the small subset of students who bounce between schools or programs for many years without making progress – using D/S as a loophole to stay in the U.S. indefinitely. Another aim is to curtail those who enroll in short courses (like language programs) repeatedly to prolong their stay. The fixed-term policy, supporters say, would root out such cases by forcing reviews every so often. Still, the broad brush of this rule affects all international students, the vast majority of whom comply with the law.

Stakeholder feedback: During the 2020 proposal’s comment period, over 32,000 public comments poured in, overwhelmingly negative. NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, submitted a formal letter opposing the changes, and in 2021 celebrated the withdrawal of the rule. Now that it’s back, similar advocacy is expected. Legal challenges could also emerge if a final rule is implemented, especially on the question of whether automatically counting unlawful presence without formal adjudication is proper. For now, the proposal is in its early stages – OMB review will be followed by publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for public comment, likely later in 2025. It could be many months before any final rule takes effect (if at all), giving schools and students some time to plan. Still, the specter of this change is already casting uncertainty over those planning to begin studies in the U.S. next year.

The impact of fixed-term visas would not fall evenly. Indian students, who now form the largest group of foreign students in the U.S., could be among the most affected. In 2024 there were over 420,000 students from India studying in American institutions – a number that has grown rapidly. Many Indian students are in long-duration programs like STEM Ph.D.s, which routinely extend beyond 4-5 years. Under the D/S system, these students could focus on their research without immigration distractions; under a fixed-term regime, virtually all would face at least one, if not multiple, extension applications mid-program. Each extension brings risk – even a small chance of denial or delay could derail an academic career. The psychological burden is also significant: students would be counting down the years on their visa clock instead of having peace of mind that maintaining enrollment is enough.

Visa interview backlogs are another issue of particular concern in regions like South Asia, Africa, and parts of the Middle East. In recent years, U.S. consulates in India struggled with huge appointment backlogs. During 2022, wait times for a U.S. visa interview in India spiked to hundreds of days (for some categories), prompting emergency measures. By late 2023 and 2024, the U.S. Mission in India ramped up staffing and brought student visa wait times down significantly – as of October 2024, the average F-1 visa interview wait was about 42 days in New Delhi, a vast improvement. However, if students now need to renew their visas more frequently, these gains could be reversed. An Indian student who goes home for a break and needs a new visa stamp after year 4 might face long queues to get an appointment for their return. In countries with fewer U.S. consulates or higher demand than capacity, periodic renewals could become a real headache.

Other nationalities in similar situations include students from China, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Iran, and Vietnam, among others, where either large student volumes or stringent vetting cause visa delays. In some cases, students might attempt to file extensions and remain in the U.S. continuously, avoiding travel until completion – but this isn’t always feasible, especially for multi-year stays. Family emergencies or academic reasons (like attending conferences abroad) could necessitate travel, which in turn means reapplying for a visa during studies. Each new application is a fresh adjudication where things can go wrong (consular officers might even question the prolonged duration of study as a reason to refuse a new visa). Indian graduate students often recall the anxiety of visa interviews where they must convince officers of their intent to use the degree back home; having to do this multiple times during one Ph.D. program increases the chance of a misunderstanding or misjudgment leading to a visa denial.

Home-country factors: The rule’s two-year admission provision specifically singles out countries with high overstay rates. Many of those are in Africa (Nigeria, for example, has been cited in past overstay reports) and some in Asia. Students from those nations could effectively be on a “two years at a time” leash, required to file extensions more frequently and with potentially more scrutiny. This raises equity concerns – students’ visa lengths could be determined not just by what they study or how they perform, but by their nationality. Such differentiation was contentious in 2020 and will likely be again.

This development comes at a time of intense global competition for international students. The U.S. has already been navigating a post-pandemic landscape where rival destinations – Canada, the UK, Australia – are vying aggressively for the same talent pool. If America adds new hurdles, some students may simply choose to go elsewhere.

Canada has emerged as a top alternative, especially for Indian students. Canadian study permits are issued for fixed durations too (usually the length of the study program, plus a grace period), so the concept of a limited visa is not alien. However, Canada offers a very attractive post-graduation work permit (PGWP) – up to 3 years open work permit for graduates – and more straightforward pathways to permanent residency. In recent years, record numbers of Indian students have flocked to Canada, drawn by these opportunities, even as the U.S. saw a dip in its share. Easier immigration pathways in countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK have been a big draw. A U.S. move that is perceived as restrictive could accelerate this trend. As one U.S.-based law firm observed, rising visa difficulties and costs in America, combined with friendly policies in competitor countries, are already pushing some students away. Additional uncertainty like the fixed-term rule “could be the last straw” for those on the fence about where to pursue their education.

The United Kingdom has also seen a resurgence in international enrollments after re-introducing a 2-year post-study work visa (Graduate Route) in 2021. The UK, like most countries, issues student visas with set expiration dates tied to the course duration. But once a student visa is granted, UK students typically don’t need to file anything like a mid-course extension – the visa usually covers the full program plus some buffer. This means less red tape during studies. The British government did tighten some rules in 2024 (such as disallowing master’s students from bringing family dependents), and there were discussions of trimming the post-study work period, but fundamentally the UK still signals welcome to students by providing a clear route to stay and work for a period after graduating. If the U.S. instead signals “you might have to fight to stay every couple of years and you have no guarantee of work authorization beyond OPT”, students could find the UK’s trade-off preferable.

Australia and New Zealand similarly grant visas for the length of the program (with defined end dates) and have long allowed graduates to work for a few years and even gain permanent residency. Australia in 2022 extended its post-study work rights further for certain advanced degrees, trying to retain talent. While Australia has enforced some stricter rules recently (like higher financial checks and cracking down on visa misuse, plus raising fees), it still markets itself as a country where if you study, you can potentially build a life thereafter. The U.S. has historically lacked a direct pathway from student visa to green card, and policies like this fixed-term proposal may be viewed as making the initial study period more cumbersome without offering any long-term benefit in return.

It’s worth noting that fixed-term visas by themselves are not unusual worldwide – most countries do not have an equivalent to D/S. What made the U.S. system unique was its flexibility and the implicit trust that schools and students would ensure status compliance. Removing that flexibility might not immediately send everyone running to other countries (after all, the U.S. still boasts many of the world’s top universities and research facilities), but it erodes a competitive advantage and adds one more negative factor international students must weigh. When combined with other issues – such as the recent political climate around visas, incidents of visa processing delays, and the lack of post-degree work guarantees – it could tip the balance for students who have options. A synopsis by The Economic Times in June 2025 noted that stricter immigration rules and unpredictable visa policies are indeed making many students “reconsider the value of studying [in the U.S.]”, at a time when countries from Canada to Japan are actively courting them.

American higher education institutions are acutely aware of these stakes. The possibility of losing bright students to friendlier destinations concerns not just university finances but also research output and cultural exchange. In fields like STEM, losing international talent could have downstream effects on the U.S. innovation pipeline. Expect universities and business groups to highlight these comparisons in their comments to DHS: they will likely argue that the rule change may “do more harm than good, both to students and to the US education system”, potentially driving students to choose countries with more stable visa regimes.

For international students currently in the U.S. or planning to come, the prospect of these visa changes can understandably cause worry. There is still a degree of uncertainty – the fixed-term visa rule is not yet finalized, and if it does go into effect, it likely won’t be instantaneous. In the interim, staying informed is key. Universities will be updating their guidance, and U.S. officials will presumably provide transition instructions if the policy is adopted (for example, how it will apply to students already in the middle of their programs).

Students should also prepare for more paperwork in general. Even if D/S remains for another year or two, the direction is toward tighter compliance. That means keeping all your I-20s updated, maintaining full-time enrollment, and consulting an adviser before doing things like extending your program or taking a break. If the new rule passes, make sure you know the expiration date of your authorized stay and mark your calendar well in advance to seek an extension or take next steps.

Crucially, don’t panic: the U.S. is not closing its doors to international students, but it is considering new rules to govern their stay. Many in academia and industry are fighting to ensure any changes do not harm students or drive them away. Your focus should remain on your studies, while also being vigilant about immigration developments.