We use cookies to offer you a better browsing experience, "recognize" returning EnglishUSA members, and analyze site traffic. By using the site, you consent to our use of cookies. To withdraw consent, please adjust your cookie settings in your browser.
EnglishUSA's Guidance to Submit Comments on the DHS Proposed Rule to End D/S
Why Duration of Status (D/S) 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) their proficiency level upon arrival and (2) the learner's goals (e.g., 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 the above and would significantly disrupt English language training students and the industry.
For a brief analysis of the issues and impact on ELPs, click here.
Key Considerations When Submitting Comments on D/S Proposed Rule
If you will be submitting an individual and/or institutional comment on behalf of your English language program:
Work with stakeholders in your program or institution to ensure English language training concerns are included in an institutional comment.
Use EnglishUSA’s guidance as a reference and example, but make sure your comment reflects your own input.
Keep text unique—DHS may bundle overly similar comments.
Select the bullet points and arguments most relevant to your program, and edit them to reflect your perspective.
Edit other associations' comments/recommendations and adapt the content to reflect your programs, concerns or areas of expertise
Focus on what is most meaningful to you and your program
Comments should explain how the proposed rule impacts or harms your program, and should use program-specific data.
Use consistent terminology: F-1 students at English language programs are engaged in “English language training.” “Pathway program” may also appear on the I-20.
You may either (1): type directly into the comment box (limit: 5,000 characters), or (2) upload a text-searchable PDF.
Relevant Program-Specific Data Points to Collect
Annual student enrollment numbers.
% of students studying more than 24 months.
Examples of students needing extra time for proficiency.
Research or other data regarding the time it takes to achieve English proficiency.
Use SEVIS data.
Transfer statistics to other ELPs or degree programs (ELP → ELP/community college/college/university AND/OR community college/college/university → ELP).
Typical number of program extensions
Tuition and local economic contributions (housing, homestay, transportation).
Community engagement examples (volunteering, cultural activities).
Data on potential or actual cost of implementation of the proposed rule. (increased staffing/resources because of increased administrative costs; loss of revenue based on lower enrollments; harmful or burdensome requirements for students, etc.)
Real-world stories of delays, backlogs, or recruitment or administrative challenges.
Impact of Proposed Rule on Different Types of ELP Students
There are two main categories of F-1 ELP students, and the proposed rule creates significant challenges for both:
Students Planning to Continue to Degree Programs
Students Not Planning to Continue to Degree Programs
These students typically enroll in an ELP as a first step toward undergraduate or graduate study in the U.S. The rule would affect them in several ways:
Minimum Academic Year Requirement (Transfer Limit): Students would be required to remain in the initial ELP for an “academic year,” even if they achieve their English proficiency goals sooner.
No Lateral Transfers: Students could not move between ELPs to find a better academic or financial fit.
No “Reverse Matriculation”: Students could not move from a higher-level program (e.g., bachelor’s or master’s) back to an ELP for additional English training.
Increased Reliance on Extension of Stay (EOS): After completing language training, students would need to file an expensive and uncertain EOS application to begin degree study
Many ELP students enroll for personal, professional, or short-term academic goals without seeking a U.S. degree. The rule would also negatively impact this group:
No Initial Transfers: Students must commit to one program and one plan, with no ability to adjust goals or change programs during their stay.
EOS Challenges: Students with short I-94 departure dates must apply for EOS, which is costly, slow, and uncertain. If they leave the U.S. before adjudication, they risk going out of status.
Barrier to Change of Plans: If students later decide to pursue a degree, they would need one EOS for the ELP and a second EOS for the degree program—adding cost and administrative burden.
Key Question: Would a student choose to enroll in an ELP before beginning their degree program, knowing they face higher costs, fewer options, and greater uncertainty? Once they arrive, they are effectively locked into their initial choice.
Key Question: Would students choose coming to the U.S. for short-term study knowing in advance there are additional costs and risk of unlawful status attached to a decision to stay longer.
Likely Consequences for ELPs:
Increased reliance on the B visa for language study, particularly for short-term students who do not intend to stay long-term.
ELPs may begin issuing longer I-20s (for full program completion rather than one term) to reduce EOS risk for students. This will require students to demonstrate higher financial resources up front.
Advising and counseling will become significantly more complex—both at admission and after arrival—because students must understand the restrictions and plan accordingly.
Programs without pathway partnerships to degree study may become less attractive options if EOS is required to transition to higher education.
Overall Impacts
The rule undermines the flexibility and attractiveness of the U.S. as a destination for English language study.
It will likely push students to study English outside the U.S. before beginning a degree, reducing enrollment in U.S.-based ELPs.
It creates a heavier administrative burden on ELPs as they adapt recruitment, advising, and compliance practices.
Comment Guidance Relevant to English Language Programs
The following components of the proposed rule are most relevant for our industry. Consider commenting on at least one or all the following. Be sure to reference specific parts of the overall rule and include comments and edited with your original input. A strong comment demonstrates, with data and reason, how the proposed rule impacts or harms your program. Document that DHS did not consider less intrusive and cumbersome alternatives.
Click on each component to scroll down to more detail & suggestions for commenting.
1. The proposed rule wrongly assumes that English language training is an educational level with a completion date; replacing D/S with a fixed admission period and creating an Extension of Stay process does not consider the significant USCIS backlog and historic processing delays, particularly affecting Form I-539 extensions of stay applications
Students would receive a fixed period of stay in the U.S. based on the initial I-20 program end date, requiring them to file an Extension of Stay (EOS) with USCIS—an expensive, lengthy, and uncertain process—if they wish to continue studying or transfer to a degree program. The I-539 EOS application costs $470 plus biometric fees, with possible additional travel expenses. Current USCIS processing times for I-539 applications already exceed four months and wait times would rise significantly under the proposed rule.
USCIS officers—not English language programs (ELPs)—would have final authority over program extensions and I-20 transfers, though ELPs can only recommend them. Because most ELP I-20s cover short terms of study, the program end date on the I-20, plus a shortened 30-day grace period (down from 60 days), will determine the departure date on a student’s I-94. Students unable to leave by that date would have to file an EOS, even for a brief extension, making continued enrollment unnecessarily burdensome.
The standards USCIS would apply to EOS decisions at ELPs are unclear, and adjudicators lack the pedagogical expertise to evaluate student progress. ELP instructors and administrators already assess outcomes using attendance, coursework, proficiency tests, and individualized learning goals—measures that cannot be replicated by USCIS staff. Given that ELPs run on short academic terms (often 8–16 weeks) and students frequently transition quickly into university programs, USCIS delays could disrupt timely admissions and progression.
The proposed rule also fails to account for the severe USCIS backlog. The agency currently faces 11.3 million pending cases. DHS itself estimates the rule would generate 414,000 additional EOS requests annually, compared with 253,876 filed in FY2024. This dramatic increase would strain USCIS further, worsening delays and jeopardizing students’ ability to maintain lawful status—ultimately harming both students and the U.S. institutions that depend on them.
Guidance on Commenting
Discuss how this kind of increase could lead to worsening processing delays, not just for these applications, but for other immigration benefits as well.
Discuss how delays or potentially erroneous adjudications could have a negative impact both on current and prospective international students’ interest in studying in the United States.
Discuss your program’s process for determining a need to extend a student’s status to continue their program. Provide compelling examples of situations where this kind of action is necessary.
Explain and quantify, where possible, additional costs and time associated with needed training, hiring of additional full-time employees, and additional considerations that will now need to be taken into consideration.
Example comments to customize:
In [Year], our Designated School Officials (DSOs) processed [X] SEVIS updates for student progress and extensions, ensuring compliance and supporting academic integrity.
In [Year], [X] of our students required an extension of stay to complete their program. Under the proposed rule, delays in processing could have prevented these students from continuing their English language study or transferring to degree programs on time.
In [Year], [X] of our students transferred into local universities. Delays in processing extensions would have prevented these transitions.
A student accepted into a U.S. university for Fall 2026 after completing our ESL program could lose their place if their extension were not processed in time.
2. The proposed 24-month limit on English language training does not conform to students’ educational paths; it is restrictive and not based on language learning research.
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.
Although there are on-line and in-country options for students to improve their English, the educational reality is that the immersion experience provides the best outcome for linguistic fluency and, importantly, cultural understanding. Other significant considerations include:
No nationally recognized English completion standards exist because language learning is unlike pursuing a degree or certificate
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 who need 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.
Guidance on Commenting
Collect information from your institution on how long it takes to complete all levels of the curriculum from beginner to advanced.
Provide specific examples of why a student would require more than 24 months of English language training.
Include references to research that supports English study beyond 24 months
Cambridge English. (2013). English Profile: Introducing the CEFR for English. Cambridge University Press.
Clark, M. (2021). More than learning English? The impact of university intensive English programs. Education Policy Analysis Archives.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 487–499). Springer.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Stanford University.
Jiang, D. (2022). Learning English L2 writing skills — process/genre and cognitive approaches. Frontiers in Psychology — experimental and pedagogy-relevant findings on writing instruction that apply to academic genres.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.
Phyo, W. M. (2023). Doctoral students’ English academic writing experiences (qualitative study). — documents the lived challenges and supports doctoral students find when producing research writing in English.
Roessingh, H., Kover, P., & Watt, D. (2005). “Developing Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency: The Journey.” TESL Canada Journal, 23(1), 1–27.
Example comments:
Our English language program serves [X] international students annually, many of whom study for more than one year and progress through multiple levels of English instruction.
In [Year], [%X] of our students studied longer than 12 months, with [%Y] continuing for two years or more.
Example: One student from Brazil began at beginner-level English and required 28 months to achieve the proficiency needed to enter undergraduate study.
3. The proposed rule limiting transfers and prohibiting lateral and reverse matriculation is a significant, unwarranted, unnecessary and harmful intrusion into English language/academic study decision-making and student mobility.
DHS proposes requiring students below the graduate level to complete their first academic year at the school that issued their initial Form I-20 before changing educational objectives or transferring schools, unless SEVP authorizes an exception for “extenuating circumstances.”
This restriction is arbitrary and particularly harmful for English language programs (ELPs), which do not operate on “academic years” and serve students with varied goals. While some institutions may welcome limits on immediate transfers, the proposal undermines student choice and program flexibility.
The rule would also bar students who “complete” a program from enrolling in another program at the same or lower educational level. This ignores the reality that language study is not linear. Students often move between program types (e.g., general communication, academic preparation, professional skills) and may need additional English training even after earning advanced degrees—for example, to conduct research or present a thesis.
Most ELPs are short-term by design, often running 8–16 weeks. Bonard reported in 2024 that the average enrollment lasted only 12.8 weeks, well under an academic year. Restricting transfers until after a full year would prevent students from experiencing multiple programs or cities (e.g., New York, Houston, Miami), making U.S. study less appealing and complicating conditional admissions or pathway programs linked to universities.
Additional problems include: the absence of a national standard for defining program “completion,” the likelihood of requiring an EOS in most transfer scenarios, and the disruption of legitimate student pathways into higher education or professional advancement.
Example comments to customize:
In [Year], [%X] of our students successfully transferred from our ELP to undergraduate or graduate programs.
In [Year], [#XX] students with prior degrees enrolled in our program to improve English for professional certification, career advancement or advanced degrees. These legitimate goals would no longer be possible under the proposed rule.
There are legitimate reasons a student wants to change schools, even at the same level such as studying ESL at language school in [location] followed by an ESL program at a community college in [location] due to location, cost, reputation, etc.
We had [#XX] students enrolled with us last year who needed additional academic ESL prior to starting a doctoral program to prepare to present theses, do research, etc.
Our pathway program may have to cease operations and therefore not meet the language needs of students who have been conditionally accepted to our institution. This year, we had [#XX] students who would be affected by this proposed rule.
4. The proposed rule would make US higher education less competitive internationally; International English language training students and exchange visitors contribute immensely to our communities, campuses and country
International students enrolled in our English language program contribute significantly to the local economy through housing, transportation, and other living expenses. In addition, they enrich our classrooms, provide cultural diversity that benefits U.S. students, and strengthen the pipeline to U.S. higher education institutions. The proposed rule would discourage many students from beginning their studies in the U.S., leading to a reduction in international enrollment and corresponding economic losses to our institution and community.
The proposed rule makes the U.S. a less competitive English language training destination. Our students consider multiple destinations for English study, including Canada, the U.K., Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. If the U.S. imposes restrictive policies, students will choose other countries with more flexible systems.
Guidance on Commenting
Provide examples of the contributions your international students and exchange visitors have made to your institutions (if applicable) and more broadly to your communities, U.S. citizens, and the U.S. economy. Where possible consider speaking broadly about contributions of past students and/or exchange visitors.
Explain how your English language students provide domestic students with necessary cultural competency that is so important to success in a global market for employment and ideas.
Consider discussing how the proposed changes would have a significantly greater economic impact on your program, your students, and your communities than anticipated by DHS and ICE, including from the loss of international students.
Consider discussing how other countries are making their immigration systems more welcoming for international students and exchange visitors and are becoming a more attractive option for many of these individuals to study English.
Example comments to customize:
Students in our program contributed to our community in meaningful ways, including X, Y and Z, strengthening ties with the community.
In [Year], our students contributed approximately [$X] in tuition and living expenses
Local homestay families hosted [#XX] of our students, building cross-cultural understanding and contributing directly to the local economy.”
In recent years, our recruiters have already reported losing students to Canada and the UK due to visa uncertainty. This year, at least [#XX] applicants chose to go elsewhere. This proposed rule would accelerate that trend.
5. SEVIS is already sufficient to accomplish DHS's goals given that English language training students are highly monitored, so the rule is duplicative, wasteful, and unnecessary.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) have a two-decades old robust system in place to certify institutions to enroll international students and exchange visitors and to track them throughout their study or program. This Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), provides DHS an early and ongoing opportunity to prevent and identify fraud and abuse of the F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrant status. SEVIS allows for the collection of information related to international students and exchange visitors and provides much of the information DHS would request via the extension application process. ELPs already dedicate substantial staff time to SEVIS compliance, including monitoring attendance, academic progress, and transfers.
Example comments to customize:
Our program devotes [#X] staff hours per week to SEVIS compliance, tracking enrollment, transfers, attendance, and progress. SEVIS already ensures accountability and provides DHS with the data it needs.
Adding duplicative USCIS extension requirements would require additional staff and training, costing approximately [$X] per year and divert resources away from academic and student support services.
FAQs
1. If my institution/program is submitting a comment, should I submit an individual one too?
Yes! You can tailor your comment to a specific issue and/or include your own data, examples, concerns, etc. It is essential that English language programs be represented in the comments that are submitted.
2. Can I submit anonymously?
Yes! It may be helpful to present general information such as, "I work at a large, independent program in the Midwest where we serve [#X] students each year." The comments in the Federal Register are public and may be used later in potential court cases.
3. Can I just cut and paste someone else's comment?
Submitting similar comments in large numbers will be counterproductive and will diminish the impact of our advocacy efforts. We have drafted this document to help you organize and personalize your own comment letter based on your own opinions, experience, and institutional context.
If you are already a member, please set up and log in to your member account by clicking "Create an Account" below. This option is also for current individual members and staff of company members who need to login, but do not have a user account set up.
We invite and encourage you to join! By working together, we can achieve our mission to maintain and enhance our industry as a whole.
Becoming a member offers access to a network of professionals, fostering valuable connections and collaboration opportunities. Additionally, it often provides resources, such as training programs or industry insights, enhancing members' professional development.
Why Duration of Status (D/S) 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) their proficiency level upon arrival and (2) the learner's goals (e.g., 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 the above and would significantly disrupt English language training students and the industry.
For a brief analysis of the issues and impact on ELPs, click here.
Key Considerations When Submitting Comments on D/S Proposed Rule
Adapted from NAFSA
EnglishUSA has tailored some of this guidance from both NAFSA’s Guidance to Submit Comments on the DHS Proposed Rule to End Duration of Status as well as the Presidents’ Alliance public resources.
If you will be submitting an individual and/or institutional comment on behalf of your English language program:
Work with stakeholders in your program or institution to ensure English language training concerns are included in an institutional comment.
Use EnglishUSA’s guidance as a reference and example, but make sure your comment reflects your own input.
Keep text unique—DHS may bundle overly similar comments.
Select the bullet points and arguments most relevant to your program, and edit them to reflect your perspective.
Comments should explain how the proposed rule impacts or harms your program, and should use program-specific data.
Use consistent terminology: F-1 students at English language programs are engaged in “English language training.” “Pathway program” may also appear on the I-20.
Comments may also be submitted anonymously.
Submit all comments online through the Federal Register (“Submit a Public Comment” button).
You may either (1): type directly into the comment box (limit: 5,000 characters), or (2) upload a text-searchable PDF.
Relevant Program-Specific Data Points to Collect
Annual student enrollment numbers.
% of students studying more than 24 months.
Examples of students needing extra time for proficiency.
Research or other data regarding the time it takes to achieve English proficiency.
Use SEVIS data.
Transfer statistics to other ELPs or degree programs (ELP → ELP/community college/college/university AND/OR community college/college/university → ELP).
Typical number of program extensions
Tuition and local economic contributions (housing, homestay, transportation).
Community engagement examples (volunteering, cultural activities).
Data on potential or actual cost of implementation of the proposed rule. (increased staffing/resources because of increased administrative costs; loss of revenue based on lower enrollments; harmful or burdensome requirements for students, etc.)
Real-world stories of delays, backlogs, or recruitment or administrative challenges.
Impact of Proposed Rule on Different Types of ELP Students
There are two main categories of F-1 ELP students, and the proposed rule creates significant challenges for both:
Students Planning to Continue to Degree Programs
Students Not Planning to Continue to Degree Programs
These students typically enroll in an ELP as a first step toward undergraduate or graduate study in the U.S. The rule would affect them in several ways:
Many ELP students enroll for personal, professional, or short-term academic goals without seeking a U.S. degree. The rule would also negatively impact this group:
Key Question: Would a student choose to enroll in an ELP before beginning their degree program, knowing they face higher costs, fewer options, and greater uncertainty? Once they arrive, they are effectively locked into their initial choice.
Key Question: Would students choose coming to the U.S. for short-term study knowing in advance there are additional costs and risk of unlawful status attached to a decision to stay longer.
Likely Consequences for ELPs:
Increased reliance on the B visa for language study, particularly for short-term students who do not intend to stay long-term.
ELPs may begin issuing longer I-20s (for full program completion rather than one term) to reduce EOS risk for students. This will require students to demonstrate higher financial resources up front.
Advising and counseling will become significantly more complex—both at admission and after arrival—because students must understand the restrictions and plan accordingly.
Programs without pathway partnerships to degree study may become less attractive options if EOS is required to transition to higher education.
Overall Impacts
The rule undermines the flexibility and attractiveness of the U.S. as a destination for English language study.
It will likely push students to study English outside the U.S. before beginning a degree, reducing enrollment in U.S.-based ELPs.
It creates a heavier administrative burden on ELPs as they adapt recruitment, advising, and compliance practices.
Comment Guidance Relevant to English Language Programs
The following components of the proposed rule are most relevant for our industry. Consider commenting on at least one or all the following. Be sure to reference specific parts of the overall rule and include comments and edited with your original input. A strong comment demonstrates, with data and reason, how the proposed rule impacts or harms your program. Document that DHS did not consider less intrusive and cumbersome alternatives.
Click on each component to scroll down to more detail & suggestions for commenting.
The proposed rule wrongly assumes that English language training is an educational level with a completion date; replacing D/S with a fixed admission period and creating an Extension of Stay process does not consider the significant USCIS backlog and historic processing delays, particularly affecting Form I-539 extensions of stay applications.
The proposed 24-month limit on English language training does not conform to students’ educational paths; it is restrictive and not based on language learning research.
The proposed rule limiting transfers and prohibiting lateral and reverse matriculation is a significant, unwarranted, unnecessary and harmful intrusion into English language/academic study decision-making and student mobility.
The proposed rule would make US higher education less competitive internationally; International English language training students and exchange visitors contribute immensely to our communities, campuses and country.
SEVIS is already sufficient to accomplish DHS's goals given that English language training students are highly monitored, so the rule is duplicative, wasteful, and unnecessary.
Details on Each Component Highlighted for ELPs
1. The proposed rule wrongly assumes that English language training is an educational level with a completion date; replacing D/S with a fixed admission period and creating an Extension of Stay process does not consider the significant USCIS backlog and historic processing delays, particularly affecting Form I-539 extensions of stay applications
Students would receive a fixed period of stay in the U.S. based on the initial I-20 program end date, requiring them to file an Extension of Stay (EOS) with USCIS—an expensive, lengthy, and uncertain process—if they wish to continue studying or transfer to a degree program. The I-539 EOS application costs $470 plus biometric fees, with possible additional travel expenses. Current USCIS processing times for I-539 applications already exceed four months and wait times would rise significantly under the proposed rule.
USCIS officers—not English language programs (ELPs)—would have final authority over program extensions and I-20 transfers, though ELPs can only recommend them. Because most ELP I-20s cover short terms of study, the program end date on the I-20, plus a shortened 30-day grace period (down from 60 days), will determine the departure date on a student’s I-94. Students unable to leave by that date would have to file an EOS, even for a brief extension, making continued enrollment unnecessarily burdensome.
The standards USCIS would apply to EOS decisions at ELPs are unclear, and adjudicators lack the pedagogical expertise to evaluate student progress. ELP instructors and administrators already assess outcomes using attendance, coursework, proficiency tests, and individualized learning goals—measures that cannot be replicated by USCIS staff. Given that ELPs run on short academic terms (often 8–16 weeks) and students frequently transition quickly into university programs, USCIS delays could disrupt timely admissions and progression.
The proposed rule also fails to account for the severe USCIS backlog. The agency currently faces 11.3 million pending cases. DHS itself estimates the rule would generate 414,000 additional EOS requests annually, compared with 253,876 filed in FY2024. This dramatic increase would strain USCIS further, worsening delays and jeopardizing students’ ability to maintain lawful status—ultimately harming both students and the U.S. institutions that depend on them.
Guidance on Commenting
Discuss how this kind of increase could lead to worsening processing delays, not just for these applications, but for other immigration benefits as well.
Discuss how delays or potentially erroneous adjudications could have a negative impact both on current and prospective international students’ interest in studying in the United States.
Discuss your program’s process for determining a need to extend a student’s status to continue their program. Provide compelling examples of situations where this kind of action is necessary.
Explain and quantify, where possible, additional costs and time associated with needed training, hiring of additional full-time employees, and additional considerations that will now need to be taken into consideration.
Example comments to customize:
In [Year], our Designated School Officials (DSOs) processed [X] SEVIS updates for student progress and extensions, ensuring compliance and supporting academic integrity.
In [Year], [X] of our students required an extension of stay to complete their program. Under the proposed rule, delays in processing could have prevented these students from continuing their English language study or transferring to degree programs on time.
In [Year], [X] of our students transferred into local universities. Delays in processing extensions would have prevented these transitions.
A student accepted into a U.S. university for Fall 2026 after completing our ESL program could lose their place if their extension were not processed in time.
2. The proposed 24-month limit on English language training does not conform to students’ educational paths; it is restrictive and not based on language learning research.
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.
Although there are on-line and in-country options for students to improve their English, the educational reality is that the immersion experience provides the best outcome for linguistic fluency and, importantly, cultural understanding. Other significant considerations include:
No nationally recognized English completion standards exist because language learning is unlike pursuing a degree or certificate
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 who need 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.
Guidance on Commenting
Collect information from your institution on how long it takes to complete all levels of the curriculum from beginner to advanced.
Provide specific examples of why a student would require more than 24 months of English language training.
Include references to research that supports English study beyond 24 months
Cambridge English. (2013). English Profile: Introducing the CEFR for English. Cambridge University Press.
Clark, M. (2021). More than learning English? The impact of university intensive English programs. Education Policy Analysis Archives.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 487–499). Springer.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Stanford University.
Jiang, D. (2022). Learning English L2 writing skills — process/genre and cognitive approaches. Frontiers in Psychology — experimental and pedagogy-relevant findings on writing instruction that apply to academic genres.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.
Phyo, W. M. (2023). Doctoral students’ English academic writing experiences (qualitative study). — documents the lived challenges and supports doctoral students find when producing research writing in English.
Roessingh, H., Kover, P., & Watt, D. (2005). “Developing Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency: The Journey.” TESL Canada Journal, 23(1), 1–27.
Example comments:
Our English language program serves [X] international students annually, many of whom study for more than one year and progress through multiple levels of English instruction.
In [Year], [%X] of our students studied longer than 12 months, with [%Y] continuing for two years or more.
Example: One student from Brazil began at beginner-level English and required 28 months to achieve the proficiency needed to enter undergraduate study.
3. The proposed rule limiting transfers and prohibiting lateral and reverse matriculation is a significant, unwarranted, unnecessary and harmful intrusion into English language/academic study decision-making and student mobility.
DHS proposes requiring students below the graduate level to complete their first academic year at the school that issued their initial Form I-20 before changing educational objectives or transferring schools, unless SEVP authorizes an exception for “extenuating circumstances.”
This restriction is arbitrary and particularly harmful for English language programs (ELPs), which do not operate on “academic years” and serve students with varied goals. While some institutions may welcome limits on immediate transfers, the proposal undermines student choice and program flexibility.
The rule would also bar students who “complete” a program from enrolling in another program at the same or lower educational level. This ignores the reality that language study is not linear. Students often move between program types (e.g., general communication, academic preparation, professional skills) and may need additional English training even after earning advanced degrees—for example, to conduct research or present a thesis.
Most ELPs are short-term by design, often running 8–16 weeks. Bonard reported in 2024 that the average enrollment lasted only 12.8 weeks, well under an academic year. Restricting transfers until after a full year would prevent students from experiencing multiple programs or cities (e.g., New York, Houston, Miami), making U.S. study less appealing and complicating conditional admissions or pathway programs linked to universities.
Additional problems include: the absence of a national standard for defining program “completion,” the likelihood of requiring an EOS in most transfer scenarios, and the disruption of legitimate student pathways into higher education or professional advancement.
Example comments to customize:
In [Year], [%X] of our students successfully transferred from our ELP to undergraduate or graduate programs.
In [Year], [#XX] students with prior degrees enrolled in our program to improve English for professional certification, career advancement or advanced degrees. These legitimate goals would no longer be possible under the proposed rule.
There are legitimate reasons a student wants to change schools, even at the same level such as studying ESL at language school in [location] followed by an ESL program at a community college in [location] due to location, cost, reputation, etc.
We had [#XX] students enrolled with us last year who needed additional academic ESL prior to starting a doctoral program to prepare to present theses, do research, etc.
Our pathway program may have to cease operations and therefore not meet the language needs of students who have been conditionally accepted to our institution. This year, we had [#XX] students who would be affected by this proposed rule.
4. The proposed rule would make US higher education less competitive internationally; International English language training students and exchange visitors contribute immensely to our communities, campuses and country
International students enrolled in our English language program contribute significantly to the local economy through housing, transportation, and other living expenses. In addition, they enrich our classrooms, provide cultural diversity that benefits U.S. students, and strengthen the pipeline to U.S. higher education institutions. The proposed rule would discourage many students from beginning their studies in the U.S., leading to a reduction in international enrollment and corresponding economic losses to our institution and community.
The proposed rule makes the U.S. a less competitive English language training destination. Our students consider multiple destinations for English study, including Canada, the U.K., Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. If the U.S. imposes restrictive policies, students will choose other countries with more flexible systems.
Guidance on Commenting
Provide examples of the contributions your international students and exchange visitors have made to your institutions (if applicable) and more broadly to your communities, U.S. citizens, and the U.S. economy. Where possible consider speaking broadly about contributions of past students and/or exchange visitors.
Explain how your English language students provide domestic students with necessary cultural competency that is so important to success in a global market for employment and ideas.
Consider discussing how the proposed changes would have a significantly greater economic impact on your program, your students, and your communities than anticipated by DHS and ICE, including from the loss of international students.
Consider discussing how other countries are making their immigration systems more welcoming for international students and exchange visitors and are becoming a more attractive option for many of these individuals to study English.
Example comments to customize:
Students in our program contributed to our community in meaningful ways, including X, Y and Z, strengthening ties with the community.
In [Year], our students contributed approximately [$X] in tuition and living expenses
Local homestay families hosted [#XX] of our students, building cross-cultural understanding and contributing directly to the local economy.”
In recent years, our recruiters have already reported losing students to Canada and the UK due to visa uncertainty. This year, at least [#XX] applicants chose to go elsewhere. This proposed rule would accelerate that trend.
5. SEVIS is already sufficient to accomplish DHS's goals given that English language training students are highly monitored, so the rule is duplicative, wasteful, and unnecessary.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) have a two-decades old robust system in place to certify institutions to enroll international students and exchange visitors and to track them throughout their study or program. This Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), provides DHS an early and ongoing opportunity to prevent and identify fraud and abuse of the F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrant status. SEVIS allows for the collection of information related to international students and exchange visitors and provides much of the information DHS would request via the extension application process. ELPs already dedicate substantial staff time to SEVIS compliance, including monitoring attendance, academic progress, and transfers.
Example comments to customize:
Our program devotes [#X] staff hours per week to SEVIS compliance, tracking enrollment, transfers, attendance, and progress. SEVIS already ensures accountability and provides DHS with the data it needs.
Adding duplicative USCIS extension requirements would require additional staff and training, costing approximately [$X] per year and divert resources away from academic and student support services.
FAQs
1. If my institution/program is submitting a comment, should I submit an individual one too?
Yes! You can tailor your comment to a specific issue and/or include your own data, examples, concerns, etc. It is essential that English language programs be represented in the comments that are submitted.
2. Can I submit anonymously?
Yes! It may be helpful to present general information such as, "I work at a large, independent program in the Midwest where we serve [#X] students each year." The comments in the Federal Register are public and may be used later in potential court cases.
3. Can I just cut and paste someone else's comment?
Submitting similar comments in large numbers will be counterproductive and will diminish the impact of our advocacy efforts. We have drafted this document to help you organize and personalize your own comment letter based on your own opinions, experience, and institutional context.