EnglishUSA Logo

DHS Proposal to Replace Duration of Status

On August 28, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to eliminate "duration of status" (D/S) for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I-1 media representatives. NAFSA: Association of International Educators has published a thorough analysis along with an explainer about Duration of Status. If enacted, the proposal would significantly impact English Language Programs (ELP) and their students, as well as overall U.S. international education.  The changes in the proposal would create barriers for English language training students, impose costly bureaucratic burdens on programs and students, and accelerate the United States' loss of international education market share to competitor countries (especially the global English language training (ELT) market).

The information below can be shared to bring your colleagues and leaders up to speed on why D/S is vital to English language training, as well as the impact of the proposed rule to the English language training (ELT) industry. This information can also be used in comment letters.

Contents

Why Duration of Status is Critical for English Language Programs

Unlike degree programs, which have recognized timelines for completion, a student's timeline for English language learning varies based on (1) proficiency levels upon arrival and (2) the goals of the learner (i.e. graduate school, business English, general English, etc.)

Duration of Status supports  this by providing the flexibility students need to achieve their English proficiency goals. ELPs can extend a student’s program of study to add an additional session or semester if appropriate. It provides a simple process for students to transfer to a new school or change education level. Under D/S, a student can seamlessly study at an ELP before starting a degree program. It also permits international students who have earned a degree in the U.S. to return to English study before starting a Masters of Ph.D program. The proposed rule impacts all of the above. 

Replacing D/S with a Fixed Admission Period and Creating an Extension of Stay (EOS) Process

The Problem: Students would receive a fixed period of stay in the U.S. based on the initial I-20 program end date, requiring an expensive, long, and uncertain Extension of Stay (EOS) process through USCIS to study beyond the departure date or to transfer to a degree program.  

  • The I-539 Extension of Stay (EOS) application requires students to pay a $470 filing fee plus biometric fees, with potential additional travel costs.

  • Current USCIS processing times for I-539 applications often exceed four months. Wait times will significantly increase under the proposed rule.

  • USCIS officers have final approval over a student’s program extension or I-20 transfers. ELPs can only recommend an extension or transfer. 

Burdensome Process for Extending Study within an ELP:
The Problem: Most English language program I-20s are for a short period of study. When entering the U.S., the departure date on a student’s  I-94 will be determined by the program end date on the I-20, plus the new 30-day grace period (rather than the current 60-day grace period). Students will need to depart the country by that date or file an EOS if they want to continue enrollment at the same program.
Real-World Example: A high-intermediate level student is admitted to an 8-week session at ‘America’s Best ELP.” They improve their English and benefit from an immersive language learning environment. They want to extend enrollment to the next 8-week session to achieve advanced proficiency, but they’ve almost reached the I-94 departure date. Under the proposed rule, they must submit an EOS and wait for USCIS adjudication.

Why This Matters: 

  • A long, expensive, and uncertain EOS process will deter students from extending their program for a short period of time.

  • The criteria that USCIS will use in deciding an EOS at an ELP is not only unclear but USCIS personnel lack pedagogical expertise to make such a decision 


Arbitrary 24-Month Limit on English Language Training Ignores Educational Reality

The Problem: DHS proposes limiting English language study to 24 months, claiming this is sufficient for achieving the “highest” level of English proficiency. The 24-month count would include breaks and vacations, but not the 30-day admission period prior to program start date or the 30-day grace period after program completion. 

 The Educational Reality: Although there are on-line and in-country options for students to improve their English, the immersion experience provides the best outcome for linguistic fluency and, importantly, cultural understanding.

  • No nationally recognized English completion standards exist

  • Research (Cummins, J., multiple research articles on BICS and CALP) indicates that it takes 1–2 years to develop basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) for everyday conversation and 5–7 years to develop cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP)—the advanced skills needed for studying or working professionally in English

  • Beginning-level students legitimately require more than 24 months to reach advanced proficiency, as well as those whose native language is non-Germanic in origin or which uses a non-Roman alphabet

  • Students may need breaks for personal, medical, or financial reasons

  • Annual vacations, level  retakes, and other valid interruptions extend study timelines

Lifetime Limit of Language Training to 24 Months?

The preamble to the proposed rule uses the word "aggregate" but that word is not used in the proposed regulatory language, according to NAFSA. This may indicate that in the new proposal DHS is not attempting to impose a lifetime aggregate for ESL study, but rather prohibiting extensions of stay for ESL study that would extend beyond 24 months. DHS should be asked to clarify this.

No Extension of Stay Beyond the 24-month Limit

USCIS would not approve an EOS beyond the 24-month limit. This burdens students needing to improve their English for advanced work in graduate and Ph.D programs. It also impacts students who have legitimate and valid reasons for needing more time.

Limits on Transfers and Changes to Educational Objectives During First Academic Year 
The Problem: DHS proposes requiring that students below the graduate level complete their first academic year of a program of study at the school that initially issued their Form I-20 before changing educational objectives or transferring schools, unless an exception is authorized by SEVP for "extenuating circumstances."

  • Not all ELPs follow the academic calendar. It is an arbitrary limit for language training.

  • The majority of ELP students enroll for less than one academic year. Bonard reports that in 2024, ELP students enrolled, on average, for 12.8 weeks.

  • Restricting transfers until after one academic year limits students from studying in multiple cities or programs (e.g., New York, Houston, Miami), reducing student choice and making the U.S. less attractive as an education tourism destination.

  • EOS is required in most transfer scenarios. 

  • Potential disruptions to established pathway programs or conditional admission to degree programs

Real-World Example (Initial Transfers): A student enters the US with I-20 from an ELP in Utah. They report to the program but feel the climate and location are not suitable and decide they want to study at an ELP in Georgia and not enroll in Utah.

  • Initial transfers would only be authorized by SEVP for "extenuating circumstances.” The examples cited by DHS for granting an exception include “when a school closes or when a school has a prolonged inability to hold in-person classes due to a natural disaster or other causes."

Real-World Example (Transfer to a New ELP): A student completes an 8-week session at an independent ELP in New York, but wants to transfer to a college-based ELP also in New York to seek degree program admission there. 

  • Students in this scenario would need to submit an EOS application with USCIS since the departure date on the I-94 is based on the independent ELP I-20. 

Real-World Example (Transfer to a Degree from an ELP): A student is admitted to a degree program in Oklahoma, but wants to brush up on their academic English skills before starting classes. They decide to enroll in an ELP in California in June and July, before joining the degree program in August. 

  • Students in this scenario would need to submit an EOS application since the departure date on the I-94 is in July.  

  • Many students would elect to avoid the additional costs, administrative burden, and uncertainty afforded by the EOS process and not enroll in short term English study before starting a degree program. The uncertainty and long wait time with EOS limits student’s choice and deter transfers from ELPs. 

Real-World Example (Pathway Program): A student is admitted to a pathway program at a university. They are issued a pathway program I-20 and enroll in language and credit classes simultaneously in the fall semester. They are able to join full degree program classes in the spring semester at the same university. 

  • Although the proposed rule requires SEVP to pre-authorize changing educational objectives or transferring before the completion of the first academic year at the school whose I-20 was used to enter the United States, the proposed rule does not specify what the procedure is to request that SEVP authorization, nor does the proposed rule further explain what might constitute "extenuating circumstances" for this purpose.

Prohibition on Lateral and Reverse Matriculation

The Problem: Students who "complete" any program would be barred from enrolling in programs at the same or lower educational levels.

The Educational Reality:

  • No national standard defines "completion" for English language programs

  • Students legitimately pursue additional English study after completing degrees to prepare for graduate work or professional advancement

  • Different English program types serve different purposes (general communication vs. academic preparation vs. professional skills)

Real-World Example (Reverse Matriculation): A student is finishing up her BA in December and is applying for MA programs that start in August, but is struggling to attain the required GRE or GMAT score.  She wants to stay in the U.S. after finishing her BA and study in a language program or test prep center to increase their score. Enrolling in an ELP allows them to remain in status and strengthen their academic English in this particular field of study before starting graduate programs.

  • Students in this scenario would be barred from transferring to an ELP. This prohibition would undermine legitimate pathways, disrupt student preparation, and harm ELT programs by reducing enrollments. 

Real-World Example (Lateral Matriculation): A student is enrolled in a General English program in Virginia, but wants to change to an Academic English program in Michigan to improve their English for their career back home. 

  • The proposed rule bars the student from starting another program at the same or a lower educational level. This proposed rule language could possibly be read as a lifetime limit, although the preamble talks about this as prohibiting "a change to the same or a lower educational level while in F-1 status," which may indicate an intention that the limit resets with a new admission as an F-1. DHS must clarify this. Plus, as stated above, the student in this scenario would need to file an EOS application since they are transferring to a new school. 

Potential Economic and Competitive Consequences

The Problems:

  • Revenue Loss: Programs face dramatic enrollment declines as students choose more welcoming destinations

  • Operational Disruption: Administrative costs increase while enrollment decreases

  • Staff Reduction: Fewer students mean fewer jobs for teachers, administrators, and support staff

Conclusion

The proposed DHS rule would replace “duration of status” with fixed end dates on Form I-94s, require F-1 students to file formal extension requests with USCIS, shorten grace periods, and restrict program changes. While DHS claims these measures will strengthen oversight, program integrity, and national security, they would instead increase institutional compliance costs, strain advising resources, and negatively affect enrollment.

If enacted, it would significantly disrupt English language training students and the industry. At a time when the sector continues recovering from pandemic impacts and facing increased global competition, this proposal would:

  • Create barriers for English language students, leading to lower enrollments

  • Impose administrative and financial burdens as programs comply with the rule

  • Damage the U.S. reputation as a welcoming ELT destination

  • Accelerate the loss of international education market share to other English-speaking countries as well as up-and-coming non-traditional destinations

  • Harm communities dependent on international students due to the loss of economic and cultural contributions 

For decades, the United States has been a leading destination for international students, bringing enormous benefits to the country—including job creation, economic revenue, research advancement, soft power and global influence, international collaboration, and community enrichment. International students are already the most closely tracked category of non-immigrants in the U.S. The proposed rule would impose unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions that risk making the U.S. a less attractive choice for them. It would negatively impact the ELT industry.

Submitting Comments

There is a 30-day comment period ending on September 29, 2025 on the rule changes. 

EnglishUSA is preparing a comment letter and encourages individuals and institutions to comment as well. The Federal Register notice contains detailed instructions on submitting comments.

According to the Federal Register website, “DHS encourages all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting data, views, comments, and arguments on all aspects of this notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Comments providing the most assistance to DHS will reference a specific portion of this rule, explain the reason for any recommended change and include the data, information, or authority that supports the recommended change.” Click here to review the full proposal and submit a comment