Fixed Visa Periods for International Students Face Academic Pushback

DHS Visa Rule Sparks Concern Across US Higher Education Sector

Last month, the USA's Department of Homeland Security introduced a proposed regulation that would meaningfully affect international students and scholars across America. DHS proposed visa regulation 2025 intends to replace the long-standing "duration of status" policy with definite admission periods for holders of F, J, and I visas. If this were to be pushed through, students and scholars would have to periodically apply for extensions of their visas and present biometrics for it, which are additional procedural hassles they must contend with.

Under the proposed regulation, students would also be made more inflexible academically-limiting more potential study pathways for international students-primarily in graduate education. Certain visa restrictions would be imposed on holders of visas abroad with a new ability to choose alternative programmes, majors or levels of study. Graduate students are particularly constrained by proposed rules, which inhibit alteration of the field of study and bar students from attaining further qualifications at the same or lower level. Such restrictions could affect PhD candidates trying to achieve a master's degree or dual-degree students needing more time to finish their courses.

On 29 September 2025, a formal letter from Brown University was addressed to the DHS, in which the applicant urged the department to rescind the regulation. According to the letter signed by the Associate Provost for Global Engagement, Asabe Poloma, the regulation would have far-reaching consequences for U.S. higher education. The proposed changes, Poloma said, would deter international talent, weaken the research and innovation enterprise, and disrupt workforce pipelines for areas critical to national development. She insisted that the regulation would reduce U.S. competitiveness in international education by making it less attractive for international scholars.

The proposed visa changes would therefore affect US universities academically. Institutions would face administrative burdens associated with having to track visa expiration dates and deal with extension requests. These visa extension procedural burdens would also affect students, who may be required to file multiple applications and seek legal support to remain compliant. The financial implications of the proposed visa rule for students are considerable, with added costs and uncertainty likely to jeopardise global student enrolment in the USA.

Poloma's letter criticised the narrow criteria for visa extensions and urged DHS to consider programme lengths and design, among other factors, as legitimate grounds upon which to evaluate requests. The restriction barring students from pursuing another programme at the same or lower level, in her view, is arbitrary and harmful, particularly for those with complicated pathways. This new regulation, in its attempt to provide a fair procedure for international education regulations and immigration enforcement, has raised tremendous concern within the field. Many see it as threatening to disturb the educational and research pathways necessary for innovation and workforce development in the US. Effects on PhD students and dual-degree students alike, coupled with other restrictions on graduate programmes, raise troubling questions over the future of US immigration policy for students in general.

The warning signs raised by this proposed rule are generally reflective of the disquiet brewing within higher education institutions regarding the direction in which DHS immigration policy and higher education are headed. Brown was not the only inkling that this discussion could turn around and reshape the landscape of international scholar policy changes in America.

Editor’s Note

The 2025 visa regulation proposed by the Department of Homeland Security may be indicative of the arrival of some disturbing tendencies in the treatment of international students and scholars in the US. The new regulation replaces the well-established policy of defining the term as "duration of status," which only puts windows of red tape and uncertainty on those who seek education and research in this country. The Associated Provost of Brown University, Asabe Poloma, claimed that this move poses an imminent danger to academic flexibility, which will increase financial and legal burdens and have a chilling effect on global talent. The regulation that restricts graduate students, PhD candidates, and dual-degree pathways has been regarded as impractical and counterproductive. These regulations threaten to compromise the very academic and research ecosystems that have long established a leading role for the US in higher education. Most disturbing is the narrow view of academic progression embedded in the proposal: not only limiting programme changes, but also rigid extension criteria. The regulation undermines the very diversity and adaptability that international education requires. More importantly, it places universities under undue pressure inasmuch as they must carry heavier loads of administrative burden in tracking visa compliance and trying to maintain academic standards. This is not simply an immigration enforcement issue; this is a question about whether the US even wants to remain relevant in the global education community. Continuing down this path will only disadvantage scholars and students from the country building its innovation capacity, developing its workforce, and enhancing its standing in the international arena.

Skoobuzz underlines that the proposed regulation indicates the possibility of a policy disposition which may be detrimental to the pillars of American higher education. Its pronouncement at Brown University is most timely, and one hopes that it will set in motion broader reflection before irreversible damage is done.

FAQs

1. What is the DHS's proposed regulation for F-1 and J-1 visas?

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed replacing the existing “duration of status” policy with fixed admission periods for F-1 and J-1 visa holders. This would require international students and scholars to apply for visa extensions periodically and undergo biometric screening.

2. How does the rule change academic flexibility for international students?

The regulation introduces tighter restrictions on academic changes. Students would face limitations when attempting to change their programme, major, or level of study, particularly during the early stages of their education. Graduate students would be especially constrained in altering their academic direction.

3. Why is Brown University opposing the DHS proposal?

Brown University has formally objected to the proposal, arguing that it would deter international talent, reduce the appeal of American higher education, and disrupt research and workforce development. The university believes the regulation undermines academic freedom and institutional competitiveness.

4. What are the financial and logistical impacts of fixed visa periods?

Fixed visa periods would increase costs for students, who may need to file multiple extension applications and seek legal assistance. Universities would also face greater administrative burdens, including tracking visa expiry dates and managing compliance procedures.

5. How could the regulation affect US research and workforce development?

The proposed changes could weaken the flow of international talent into research and academic programmes, thereby affecting innovation and limiting the development of skilled professionals in key national sectors.

6. Which students are most affected by the new visa rules?

Graduate students, PhD candidates, and those pursuing dual degrees are likely to be most affected. The regulation places strict limits on academic progression and programme changes, which are common in advanced and interdisciplinary studies.

7. What are the limitations on programme changes under the proposed rule? 

Undergraduate students would be restricted from changing their programme, major, or education level during their first year, except in rare cases. Graduate students would be barred from changing their field of study and from pursuing another qualification at the same or lower level.

8. How might dual-degree and PhD students be impacted?

Students pursuing dual degrees or PhD programmes may be unable to shift between qualifications or extend their study period. This could disrupt their academic trajectory and prevent them from completing integrated or sequential programmes.

9. When will the DHS rule take effect?

The regulation has been proposed but is not yet in effect. Institutions and stakeholders are currently submitting formal responses, and the timeline for implementation will depend on the outcome of this review process.

10. How are US universities responding to the proposed regulation?

Most universities have expressed concern or issued cautious statements. While some are still reviewing the proposal, others, like Brown University, have formally urged DHS to withdraw it, citing its negative impact on international education and institutional operations.