We at NAFSA appreciate the authors’ attempt to spark conversation about areas of concern regarding international student visa practices and policy as described in their opinion piece, “Will Trump Take on Misuse of Student Visas?” Attempts—successful or not—to fraudulently exploit the international student system cause immeasurable harm to legitimate international students and all those who seek to support international education and should be of grave concern. Unfortunately, the piece contains some oversimplifications and errors in data interpretation that warrant untangling and correcting if we are to advance a common understanding of these issues and make progress on addressing them.
Student Visa Status
The authors vastly exaggerate international student visa overstays by inaccurately citing the fiscal year 2023 Entry/Exit Overstay Report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection—a report that itself overstates the issue. According to the report, the in-country overstay rate for F-1 students was 2.69 percent1 in 2023. However, even that number is unreliable. DHS concedes its systems have difficulty identifying students who do not depart via air or who change status, including those who have transitioned from F-1 status to H-1B, temporary protected status, special student relief, legal permanent residency, etc.
DHS highlights the problems with its statistics in table 7 of the report. The table shows the suspected in-country overstay rate for F, J, and M students and exchange visitors declined by 42 percent over a 15-month period between the end of 2022 and January 1, 2024. This indicates that DHS systems take time to register various, changing situations for students, as mentioned above.
The authors of the article also make an egregious error by extrapolating from Open Doors data, making an apples-and-oranges comparison. The DHS report includes “expected departures” for people who entered the United States over multiple years and via multiple visa categories (F, J, and M). The authors chose to refer to the largest overstay number provided in the report and compare it to new international student enrollment for a single year from a different source (comprised of largely F-1 students and a very small pool of students on J visas2). This does not compute and it’s not surprising the authors came up with a significantly different figure than appears anywhere else.
As NAFSA has argued for years, DHS must continue to improve intra-agency data sharing to ensure the statistical integrity and accuracy needed to truly understand the nature and number of student overstays.
Student Visa Integrity
The authors also reference fraudulent students, schools, and Forms I-20 and lump these issues together as evidence of individuals and institutions “gaming the system.” However, they do not provide data to substantiate these claims. It is important to be precise. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), is charged with certifying every school that seeks to admit and enroll international students. The certification process requires an ICE official to visit the school to review its facilities and interview the school officials who will report detailed information about any international students admitted to the school. Only after a review process and approval may an institution issue the necessary document (Form I-20) for F-1 international students to apply for a visa with the Department of State (DOS). Documented examples of fraudulent schools are extremely rare and it is important not to confuse this very small number of bad actors with the majority of colleges and universities who take their responsibilities very seriously and who comply with a system that functions safely.
International students are the most tracked nonimmigrants in the United States. Certified schools that admit and enroll international students are required to report on students’ status throughout their period of study. Enforcement mechanisms are in place to address international students who violate their status and higher education institutions that abuse the system.
International Student Transfers Upon Entry
As the authors describe, the current policy that allows students to transfer immediately upon arrival is frustrating for institutions’ international enrollment management efforts. We believe there is value in having greater uniformity in international student transfer policies. Institutional business practices, such as high deposit fees, may be effective in discouraging international students from transferring schools soon after entering the United States. We would do well to determine the actual extent of this problem before we push for specific regulatory policy changes, such as restricting international students from transferring until after one semester.
Curricular Practical Training
Curricular practical training (CPT) was not created as a work program but rather one of the very few limited opportunities for international students to augment their academic program with experiential learning. Higher education carefully designs curricula that sometimes require work-based learning as an academic necessity. Domestic students do not need permission to engage in these programs; however, international students do, and they obtain it through CPT.
The authors note that some graduate programs allow immediate participation in CPT, which they cite as an example of a questionable international student mobility practice. This practice is not a “loophole” that provides a dubious shortcut to employment but rather a specific, time-tested regulatory provision that facilitates innovation in today’s complex world. ICE tracks all authorizations of CPT through the SEVIS database and, if it suspects misuse of CPT, may use enforcement measures to crack down on practices that violate the law.
Role of Associations
NAFSA takes very seriously its commitment to providing members with the resources needed to stay abreast of the ever-evolving policy, regulatory, and geopolitical environment and to guiding them on how best to safely and lawfully advise their students. We are also strongly invested in our role liaising with U.S. government agencies and Congress on how best to resolve the issues around student and exchange visitor visas that do exist. In late 2024, the U.S. for Success Coalition—of which NAFSA is a founding member—established a task force devoted to these topics. As the work of the task force proceeds, we expect to share more information with the field in the future.
NAFSA and its allies within the coalition are committed to working with SEVP on a long-term basis to strengthen the integrity of the SEVIS system and with DHS and DOS on the integrity of the entire international student journey.
For their part, higher education institutions need to invest adequate resources to ensure that their staff are equipped to support international student success every step of the way: recruitment, admissions, enrollment, graduation, and beyond. Ensuring visa integrity is a shared responsibility among multiple agencies and institutions.
We thank the authors for generating this important discussion and encourage their partnership as we address business practices and visa issues to ensure the strength and vitality of international education and exchange. We offer this fact-based response to move the field closer to effective and appropriate solutions.
Endnotes:
1Found on page 9 of the DHS report.
2The 2022-23 academic year Open Doors report provides a total figure of international students in the United States. According to the report, 93.6 percent of those students were on an F visa and 3.3 percent were on a J visa.