We can provide phone, zoom, or in person consultations
Published on:

By

One of the most important, and potentially confusing, aspects of the Department of Homeland Security’s July 17, 2026 Final Rule, Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media, 91 Fed. Reg. 44976 (July 17, 2026), is how it applies to individuals who are already in the United States when the regulation becomes effective. The transition provisions determine whether current F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I representatives of foreign information media will remain subject to the longstanding Duration of Status (D/S) framework or whether they must immediately comply with the new system of fixed periods of admission and extension of stay applications.

For many international students, universities, hospitals, exchange sponsors, and employers, the transition provisions may be even more important than the substantive amendments themselves. Institutions must understand whether existing participants are “grandfathered” under the prior regulations, when the new rules begin to apply, and what events trigger application of the new regulatory framework.

The Chicago immigration lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. are carefully studying the Department of Homeland Security’s Final Rule establishing fixed periods of admission for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I representatives of foreign information media. Throughout this series, we explain the regulation section by section, analyze DHS’s legal reasoning, and discuss the practical implications for students, universities, hospitals, employers, and exchange sponsors. For additional discussion, visit our immigraiotn blog.

Why Transition Rules Matter

Whenever an agency fundamentally changes an immigration regulation, one of the first legal questions is whether the new requirements apply immediately to everyone or only prospectively.

Transition provisions are essential because immigration benefits often span many years. A doctoral student may spend six to eight years completing a degree. A physician participating in graduate medical education may remain in J-1 status throughout residency and fellowship. A research exchange visitor may participate in a long-term scientific collaboration extending over several years.

If DHS simply abolished Duration of Status overnight without transition rules, thousands of individuals would immediately face uncertainty regarding their lawful presence and compliance obligations.

Recognizing this concern, DHS devoted substantial discussion in the Final Rule to implementation and transition.

The Effective Date Is Not the Same as Immediate Universal Application

One of the first misconceptions practitioners should avoid is assuming that the rule’s effective date automatically places every current F-1, J-1, and I nonimmigrant into the new regulatory system.

The Final Rule becomes effective on September 15, 2026, unless delayed pursuant to congressional review or subsequent legal developments. However, the effective date merely establishes when the new regulations become operative. It does not necessarily mean that every individual already present in the United States instantly loses Duration of Status.

Instead, the transition provisions distinguish between individuals already present under the existing regulatory framework and those who seek admission or immigration benefits after implementation of the Final Rule.  Understanding that distinction is critical.

DHS Attempted to Avoid Immediate Disruption

One theme appearing throughout the Final Rule is DHS’s recognition that universities, exchange sponsors, and employers require sufficient time to adjust administrative procedures. Educational institutions have built compliance systems around Duration of Status for decades. Student information systems, SEVIS procedures, orientation materials, compliance manuals, institutional policies, and attorney guidance have all been developed under the assumption that students generally remain admitted for the duration of their educational program.

Immediate abandonment of those systems would create significant operational difficulties.

Accordingly, DHS attempted to design transition provisions that permit implementation while reducing unnecessary disruption to institutions already administering ongoing academic and exchange programs.

Current Students Are Not All Situated Equally

One of the important consequences of the transition provisions is that current nonimmigrants should not assume they are all treated identically.

Several variables may affect how the Final Rule applies, including:

  • The date of admission.
  • Whether the individual departs and seeks readmission after the effective date.
  • Whether the individual files an extension of stay.
  • Whether the individual changes status.
  • Whether another immigration benefit requires adjudication under the revised regulations.

As a result, two students enrolled in the same academic program could eventually become subject to different procedural requirements depending upon their individual immigration history.

This individualized analysis is likely to become an important component of immigration advising.

Travel May Trigger Application of the New Rules

One of the most significant practical issues involves international travel.

Many students routinely travel abroad during summer breaks, winter holidays, or academic conferences. Exchange visitors frequently engage in international travel during research projects. Physicians participating in residency or fellowship training occasionally travel for professional conferences or family emergencies.

After implementation of the Final Rule, readmission to the United States may occur under the revised regulatory framework rather than the prior Duration of Status system.

Consequently, travel planning may require substantially greater attention than under previous practice.

Before international travel, individuals should carefully consult with their Designated School Official, Responsible Officer, or experienced immigration counsel to determine whether the new regulations may affect their readmission.

Pending Applications Present Additional Questions

Transition periods frequently create uncertainty regarding pending immigration applications.

For example:  What happens if an application is filed before the effective date but remains pending afterward? Will USCIS adjudicate the application under the regulations in effect on the filing date or under the revised regulations? How should requests for evidence be evaluated if regulatory standards change during adjudication?

The Final Rule addresses several implementation issues, but practitioners should nevertheless expect USCIS policy guidance to clarify additional procedural questions as implementation proceeds.

Historically, transition periods often require supplemental policy memoranda to resolve practical issues not fully addressed in the regulations themselves.

Universities Should Not Assume Existing Compliance Procedures Remain Adequate

Many universities have spent decades developing compliance systems tailored to Duration of Status. Those procedures generally emphasize:

  • Full-time enrollment.
  • SEVIS reporting.
  • Academic progress.
  • Employment authorization.
  • Program completion.

The Final Rule requires institutions to supplement, but not replace, those procedures.

Schools should begin reviewing orientation materials, internal guidance documents, compliance calendars, international student advising procedures, and recordkeeping practices to ensure they address the transition from Duration of Status to fixed periods of admission.  Failure to update institutional procedures may result in students relying upon outdated information.

Hospitals Face Unique Transition Challenges

Teaching hospitals and graduate medical education programs may encounter particularly complex transition issues.

Residency and fellowship programs often span several academic years. Some physicians may begin training before implementation of the Final Rule but continue well beyond its effective date. Hospitals therefore should determine which physicians remain governed by prior procedures, which become subject to the revised regulations following travel or immigration filings, and how internal immigration tracking systems should be modified.

Graduate Medical Education offices, designated institutional officials, human resources personnel, and immigration counsel should coordinate implementation planning well before the rule becomes effective.

Exchange Sponsors Must Reevaluate Internal Policies

Responsible Officers administering J-1 programs should likewise review institutional policies. Exchange programs frequently involve international travel, amendments to program objectives, transfers, and extensions. Each of these events may interact differently with the Final Rule’s transition provisions.

Sponsors should therefore update written guidance provided to exchange visitors and ensure that staff understand when the revised regulations become applicable.

Potential Litigation Concerning Transition Provisions

Transition provisions frequently generate litigation because regulated parties often argue that new requirements should not apply retroactively. Although DHS characterizes the Final Rule as prospective, future litigation may address questions such as:

  • Whether particular provisions operate retroactively in practice.
  • Whether individuals reasonably relied upon the Duration of Status framework when making long-term educational decisions.
  • Whether adequate notice was provided before implementation.
  • Whether application of the new regulations to existing participants is arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Courts have historically scrutinized agency efforts to alter longstanding regulatory expectations, particularly where individuals structured years of educational or professional activity around prior regulations.

Accordingly, the transition provisions may receive significant judicial attention if implementation is challenged.

Practical Guidance

Students should not assume that classmates are subject to identical immigration rules.  Universities should educate advisors regarding the transition framework well before implementation. Hospitals should review every physician’s immigration timeline individually rather than applying a single institutional policy. Exchange sponsors should update compliance manuals and orientation materials.

Immigration attorneys should review pending cases carefully to determine whether filing strategies should be adjusted before or after  the effective date.

Most importantly, institutions should avoid relying upon informal assumptions. The transition provisions are technical, and individualized legal analysis may be necessary to determine which regulatory framework applies to a particular nonimmigrant.

Conclusion Continue reading →

Published on:

By

 The Chicago immigration lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer PC are studying the final rule eliminating Duration of Status,  and explain the changes in our blogs. The elimination of Duration of Status (D/S) by the final rule, Final Rule, Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media, 91 Fed. Reg. 44976 (July 17, 2026) is only half of the story. Equally significant is what replaces it.

Under the Department of Homeland Security’s July 17, 2026 Final Rule, F-1 academic students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I representatives of foreign information media will no longer generally receive an open-ended period of lawful admission tied to continued compliance with their program. Instead, DHS establishes a system of fixed periods of admission, bringing these classifications much closer to the framework already used for H-1B professionals, L-1 intracompany transferees, O-1 individuals of extraordinary ability, TN professionals, and most other nonimmigrant categories. This represents one of the most significant structural changes to nonimmigrant admissions in more than four decades.

Rather than allowing status to continue automatically while a student remains enrolled or an exchange visitor remains in an approved program, the government will now determine an authorized period of stay at the time of admission. Individuals who need additional time generally must affirmatively request an extension before that admission period expires. This change alters not only immigration procedure but also the allocation of responsibility between the government, educational institutions, exchange sponsors, employers, and the nonimmigrant themselves.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

For more than forty years, most F-1 academic students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I media representatives entered the United States under one of immigration law’s most unusual admission systems: Duration of Status (D/S). Unlike nearly every other nonimmigrant classification, these individuals were generally not admitted until a fixed expiration date. Instead, they remained in lawful status for as long as they continued to satisfy the requirements of their educational program, exchange program, or qualifying media employment.

The Department of Homeland Security’s July 17, 2026 Final Rule, Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media, 91 Fed. Reg. 44976 (July 17, 2026), fundamentally changes that framework. D/S largely disappears. In its place, DHS establishes fixed periods of admission and requires many nonimmigrants to seek affirmative extensions of stay from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) if additional time is needed.

The elimination of D/S represents much more than an administrative adjustment. It reflects a profound shift in DHS’s understanding of immigration compliance, government oversight, unlawful presence, and the relationship between educational institutions and the federal government.  The Chicago immigration lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer PC are studying the final rule and explain the changes in our blogs.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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:

By

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?
Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
4141 N Western Ave
Chicago, IL 60618
Phone: 773-516-4100
Fax: 773-304-3185

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2014 – 2026, Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design