Published on:

On July 17, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), published a Final Rule that fundamentally restructures the admission of F-1 academic students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I representatives of foreign information media. The rule replaces the long-standing Duration of Status (D/S) framework with fixed periods of admission and a new extension-of-stay system. Unless altered pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, the rule becomes effective on September 15, 2026.

For nearly forty years, most F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants have been admitted for the duration of their educational or exchange program rather than until a specified expiration date. Under the new rule, that framework largely disappears. Instead, these nonimmigrants will generally receive a fixed period of authorized admission and, if additional time is needed, must apply affirmatively to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for an extension of stay before their authorized period expires.

At Zneimer & Zneimer P.C., we believe this Final Rule represents one of the most significant regulatory changes affecting international education, graduate medical education, exchange programs, and immigration compliance in recent history.

Why DHS Adopted the Rule

DHS explains that the Duration of Status system has become increasingly difficult to administer because millions of F, J, and I nonimmigrants remain in the United States for extended periods without routine direct review by immigration officers. According to DHS, replacing D/S with fixed admission periods will provide greater oversight, improve compliance monitoring, deter fraud and abuse, strengthen national security, and permit more regular evaluation of whether nonimmigrants continue to satisfy the requirements of their classifications.

The agency also points to dramatic growth in these visa categories since D/S was first adopted. In Fiscal Year 2025 alone, DHS reports more than 1.6 million admissions in F status, more than 500,000 admissions in J status, and more than 43,000 admissions in I status, far exceeding the numbers seen when D/S was originally implemented.

The Biggest Change: The End of Duration of Status

For decades, an F-1 student’s Form I-94 generally stated “D/S.”

Rather than receiving a specific expiration date, students remained in lawful status so long as they:

  • maintained a full course of study;
  • complied with SEVIS requirements;
  • avoided unauthorized employment;
  • remained otherwise eligible under the immigration regulations.

Similarly, J-1 exchange visitors generally remained in status for the duration of their authorized exchange program. The Final Rule largely eliminates that framework.

Instead, DHS returns these classifications to the same basic structure used by most other nonimmigrant categories: admission for a fixed period that expires on a specified date unless extended or otherwise authorized.

What Replaces Duration of Status?

Under the Final Rule:

  • CBP will admit F, J, and I nonimmigrants for defined periods of authorized stay.
  • Individuals needing additional time generally must file an Extension of Stay (EOS) application with USCIS before the admission period expires.
  • DHS establishes detailed procedures governing extensions, changes of status, travel during pending applications, and related employment authorization.

The practical result is that maintaining lawful status will no longer depend solely upon remaining academically or programmatically eligible. It will also depend upon careful monitoring of admission expiration dates and timely filing with USCIS when additional time is necessary.

Major Components of the Final Rule

The regulation spans more than 150 pages and makes sweeping amendments throughout the immigration regulations. Among other things, it:

  • replaces Duration of Status with fixed periods of admission for F, J, and I nonimmigrants;
  • establishes comprehensive Extension of Stay procedures;
  • creates transition rules for individuals already present in D/S status;
  • modifies admission rules following international travel;
  • revises employment authorization provisions;
  • establishes new biometrics procedures for certain extension applications;
  • changes numerous SEVIS compliance requirements;
  • modifies rules governing school transfers, educational objective changes, and graduate education;
  • changes rules affecting Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM OPT; and
  • revises regulations governing representatives of foreign information media.

The Final Rule Is Not Identical to the Proposed Rule

This regulation is not simply the 2025 proposal adopted unchanged.  After publishing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in August 2025, DHS received approximately 22,000 public comments. The agency revised numerous provisions before issuing the Final Rule, including modifications affecting transition procedures, extension processes, graduate students, employment authorization, biometrics, and several other regulatory provisions. The preamble contains an extensive discussion of the comments received and DHS’s responses.Many of the concerns raised during notice-and-comment rulemaking resulted in meaningful revisions to the regulatory text.

Who Will Be Most Affected?

Although the Final Rule applies broadly, its practical impact will be especially significant for:

  • international students attending U.S. colleges and universities;
  • international medical graduates in J-1 residency and fellowship programs;
  • teaching hospitals sponsoring physician training;
  • universities and Designated School Officials (DSOs);
  • exchange visitor program sponsors;
  • employers relying upon F-1 OPT or STEM OPT employees;
  • foreign media organizations employing I visa holders; and
  • immigration practitioners advising these populations.

Institutions that have relied on SEVIS updates as the primary mechanism for maintaining status will now need to monitor admission expiration dates and Extension of Stay deadlines much more closely.

Why This Matters

For decades, immigration compliance for F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants has largely centered on maintaining academic or program eligibility. The Final Rule shifts a substantial portion of that responsibility to periodic federal adjudications.

Students, physicians, exchange visitors, schools, hospitals, and employers must now pay close attention not only to whether the underlying educational or exchange program remains valid, but also to whether the individual’s authorized period of admission has expired and whether additional USCIS filings are required.

This represents a fundamental structural change in the administration of these visa categories.

Our Review of the Regulations Continue reading →

Published on:

At Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., we regularly advise asylum seekers, employers, physicians, and other foreign nationals on complex immigration issues that arise at the intersection of statutory interpretation, international law, and rapidly evolving administrative precedent. Our attorneys monitor every precedential decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals because a single opinion can significantly alter litigation strategy, evidentiary requirements, and the likelihood of success in both affirmative and defensive asylum cases. Matter of R-A-N-, 29 I&N Dec. 739 (BIA 2026), is one such decision. It reshapes the legal framework governing asylum claims based on military conscription and clarifies an issue that had generated uncertainty among practitioners for decades.

On July 7, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of R-A-N-, 29 I&N Dec. 739 (BIA 2026), one of the most significant asylum decisions in decades involving military conscription. The decision addresses a question that has become increasingly important following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and other armed conflicts around the world:

  • Can an individual obtain asylum simply because he fears being drafted into an army accused of committing war crimes?
Published on:

The judging criterion recognizes an important feature of professional life. Fields often ask accomplished individuals to evaluate the work of others. A scholar reviews manuscripts. A physician reviews grant proposals. A choreographer judges a competition. A founder evaluates startup pitches. An artist reviews portfolios. A coach selects athletes. These activities may show that others trust the beneficiary’s expertise.

The regulation requires evidence that the beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others, either individually or on a panel, in the same or an allied field. Participation matters. USCIS usually wants proof that the beneficiary actually judged the work, not merely proof that someone invited the beneficiary to do so.

A recent AAO’s senior scientist decision illustrates the issue. The petitioner submitted emails requesting manuscript reviews. One email showed that the beneficiary agreed to review a paper. The AAO found the evidence insufficient because the record did not prove that the beneficiary completed the reviews. The request and acceptance suggested possible judging, but they did not prove participation.

Published on:

Published material can strongly support an O-1 petition, but USCIS applies this criterion with precision. The O-1A regulation requires published material in professional publications, major trade publications, or major media about the beneficiary and relating to the beneficiary’s work in the field. The article must include the title, date, author, and any required translation.

The central word is “about.” A publication that merely quotes the beneficiary does not necessarily discuss the beneficiary. A company profile that names the beneficiary once may not qualify. A press release about a product, conference, grant, survey, restaurant, film, or research group may not satisfy the criterion if it does not meaningfully discuss the beneficiary’s own work.

The AAO has repeatedly rejected passing references. In one university global engagement case, articles from news websites quoted or mentioned the beneficiary, but the AAO found that the articles did not constitute published material about her work. In a business case, an article in Sport Aviation discussed a company and referred to the beneficiary as an executive. The AAO questioned whether the article was about the beneficiary and also noted that the petitioner failed to prove the publication’s intended audience as a professional publication.

Published on:

The membership criterion often appears deceptively simple. A beneficiary belongs to a professional association, national federation, academy, accelerator group, artistic collective, or industry organization. The petitioner then argues that membership demonstrates elite standing. USCIS, however, asks a more exacting question: did the association require outstanding achievements of its members, judged by recognized national or international experts?

The regulation does not reward ordinary professional participation. It rewards selective membership based on achievement. This distinction matters because many reputable organizations have open membership. A national organization may govern a field, issue rules, host competitions, provide training, or promote professional development. None of that proves that each member entered through expert judgment of outstanding accomplishments.

A recent AAO’s equestrian event decision illustrates the point. The petitioner relied on membership in national equestrian organizations and emphasized that those organizations regulate eventing and establish competition standards. The AAO recognized the organizations’ role in the sport but distinguished that fact from the membership requirement. The petitioner had to show that the beneficiary’s level of membership required outstanding achievement judged by recognized experts. General membership in an important organization did not establish that point.

Published on:

Awards occupy a privileged place in O-1 adjudication because they appear, at first glance, to offer objective proof. A certificate, trophy, competition ranking, fellowship, grant, or public announcement may seem to answer the question of distinction. Yet in O-1 practice, the existence of an award rarely ends the inquiry. USCIS asks a narrower and more demanding question: does the award show nationally or internationally recognized excellence in the field?

For O-1A cases, which include science, education, business, and athletics, the regulation permits evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. For O-1B arts cases, the regulation requires significant national or international awards or prizes, and it gives examples such as the Academy Award, Emmy, Grammy, or Directors Guild Award. These examples do not mean that only those awards qualify. They do, however, show the level of significance USCIS will consider.

Review of AAO decisions provides useful examples. In a dance choreographer case, the beneficiary won second and third place awards at an international dance competition. The record described the event as large and international, with thousands of dancers. The AAO still found the evidence insufficient because the petitioner did not prove the purpose of the awards, selection process, eligibility criteria, or recognition of the awards beyond the event itself. In a tattoo artist case, the petitioner relied on magazine contest awards and social media recognition. The AAO rejected the claim because public voting, self-promotional posts, and general statements about the magazine did not establish that the awards carried significance comparable to the regulatory examples.

Published on:

Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. is a Chicago law firm representing employers, professionals, families, and foreign nationals in immigration matters, including employment-based petitions, adjustment of status, consular processing, waivers, and complex immigration strategy. Our immigration practice monitors USCIS policy developments closely because even technical agency memoranda can affect real people, workplaces, families, and long-term immigration planning.

This article provides the public with a practical and legally grounded analysis of USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199. The memorandum has generated understandable concern because it discusses adjustment of status as a discretionary benefit and directs officers to weigh certain facts more carefully.  The memorandum does not end adjustment of status, does not repeal INA § 245, does not eliminate dual intent, and does not create a categorical bar to green card approval inside the United States.

This article offers general information and public legal analysis. It does not substitute for individualized legal advice, because adjustment strategy depends on the applicant’s immigration history, status, category, family facts, travel history, employment records, and admissibility issues.

Published on:

The Chicago immigration lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer are monitoring the evolving immigration restrictions.  In this blog we provide an overview of visa restrictions affecting various countries under current U.S. immigration policy. The restrictions are organized into three categories based on the type and scope of limitations imposed.

Overview of Restriction Types

The United States currently maintains three distinct types of visa restrictions:

Published on:

When the federal government changes the rules of entry overnight, families and employers feel the impact first and they feel it hardest. The immigration lawyers at the Law Office of Zneimer & Zneimer read the proclamation text, and can assist in mapping it to visa categories, and develop a plan that fits the client’s facts.

The legal engine: INA 212(f) plus a moving country list

The President issued Proclamation 10949 on June 4, 2025, then expanded and modified the framework in Proclamation 10998 on December 16, 2025. Proclamation 10998 takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern on January 1, 2026.

Published on:

The U.S. immigration landscape is shifting again for H-1B workers and employers. On September 19, 2025, the President issued a Presidential Proclamation on Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, a significant policy change aimed at reforming the H-1B visa program. Under this directive, certain H-1B petitions filed on or after 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on September 21, 2025 must include an additional $100,000 payment as a condition of eligibility.

USCIS has now issued more instructions interpreting the Proclamation. Employers and foreign professionals must understand how this new requirement works .

Who Must Pay the $100,000

Contact Information