Madeleine Biondi, Staff Writer
A day before its enactment, a U.S. District judge issued nationwide preliminary relief in a Department of Homeland Security lawsuit, postponing the fixed time period rule on Visas for international students set for Sept. 15, according to the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers.
The 1978 rule was created on July 17 by the Department of Homeland Security to establish a fixed period of admission in place of the unspecified duration of stay rule established in. F-1 international students and J-1 work-study students were to be admitted for 4 years, with I-1 foreign media and journalists restricted to 240 days.
The final rule contained a shorter departure period, restrictions on transferring programs and a necessity to request extensions for all 1.03 million F students, 290,000 J students and an untracked number of I card holders.
VCU enrolls 1,180 international students, or 4-6% of the student body, who would have been affected, in addition to its permanent resident students currently affected by new public charge rulings, according to VCU.
Michael Porter, a VCU spokesman, said the department continues to monitor developments on the issue. International students can also access immigration advising through the VCU Global Education Office.
Porter said all information would be communicated to international students.
Among these updates is the U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV’s ruling that the new policy would have negligible effect on national security and exceed statutory authority, according to the ruling.
“The damage to the higher education system and to the economy of the United States is likely to be catastrophic,” Saylor IV said.
The initial lawsuit and request for injunction were filed on Aug. 18 in the District of Massachusetts by plaintiffs whose labor unions and organizations focused on higher education and immigration.
Plaintiffs were likely to prove that the final rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act, meaning it did not abide by the rule-making and executing process and was in violation of the law, according to the court ruling
The plaintiffs, including NAFSA, the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration and the American Federation of Teachers, appeared on Sept. 3 for the hearing assigned to Judge Saylor, according to a press release from the Presidents’ Alliance.
Complaints heard from plaintiffs included failure to justify the rule based on its objectives and evaluate its cost and benefit. Plaintiffs maintain that the DHS did not allow adequate time for public comment or to adapt to it, failing to consider its alternatives.
After the lawsuit’s success, many of its plaintiffs framed the victory as part of a larger process in addressing arbitrary new immigration law.
International educators work with the federal government to ensure they are complying with U.S. immigration law, said Fanta Aw, a plaintiff and the Executive Director of NAFSA.
“At a time when countries around the world are competing for talent, the United States should be strengthening our ability to attract the best and brightest, not creating new barriers to it,” Aw said.
DHS General Counsel James Percival made statements against the injunction on X.
“Come on a student visa, take one class per semester, and stay here for decades. According to Judge Dennis Saylor, ICE must permit this rampant abuse of our immigration system,” Percival said.
The restrictions on those with an F, J and I classification are accompanied by other new DHS rules, notably a “public charge” rule that would allow immigrants’ use or likelihood of using public benefits to be taken into account when qualifying for permanent residency, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This rule reinstates and expands a former 2019 requirement to include a wider range of “public charges,” rescinding a 2022 ruling against consideration of government assistance.
The public charge rule went into effect on Sept. 18 despite lawsuits led by 22 states and D.C., including Virginia, New York City and other cities, according to Stateline.
Saylor’s ruling is effective unless challenged by further judicial action, according to the June 2025 Supreme Court ruling that district courts cannot provide “universal injunctions,” or a national order, unless necessary.