Page 34 - The Indian EYE 060625
P. 34
IMMIGRATION JUNE 06, 2025 | The Indian Eye 34
Fighting Back Trump’s
Attacks on Foreign Students
CYRUS MEHTA & court judge ordered the ban tion. If no action is taken, Act. Washtech was analyzed required or recommended by
to be halted temporarily in the the student’s SEVIS record at length in a prior blog, which their school”. Practical train-
KAITLYN BOX*
face of ongoing litigation. In- could then be terminated for is excerpted here. The case ing has been authorized even
ternational students reported- a violation of status on the involved a challenge to the prior to the enactment of the
n recent weeks, the ly make up more than a quar- grounds that they failed to rule permitting eligible stu- INA in 1952.
Trump administration has
Ilaunched a concerted as- ter of Harvard’s student body. timely report OPT employ- dents in STEM fields to seek While there is no explicit
According to reports, ment or exceeded the max-
an additional 24 month OPT authorization in the INA for
sault on international students U.S. Immigration and Cus- imum permissible 90-day extension beyond the usual OPT, it has been around for
and their ability to remain in toms Enforcement has also re- period of unemployment 12 month OPT period by the over 70 years and predates the
the U.S. In the latest volleys cently began sending warning during OPT. The notice fur- Washington Alliance of Tech- Immigration and Nationality
against Harvard University, notices to certain F-1 students ther warns that failure to take nology Workers (Washtech), Act of 1952, as the court em-
the Trump administration or- who have been enrolled in the corrective action may result a union representing tech phasized in Washtech. Under
dered the revocation of Har- Optional Practical Training of the student being placed workers. Washtech read INA Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S.
vard’s Student and Exchange (OPT) program for more than in removal proceedings. § 101(a)(15)(F)(i) as authoriz- 575, 580 (1978), Congress is
Visitor Program (SEVP) 90 days but have not reported Moreover, the adminis- ing DHS to allow F-1 students presumed to be aware of an
certification, which will ban any employment status. tration has evidenced a de- to remain in the U.S. only un- administrative interpreta-
the university from enrolling The notices afford im- sire to thwart international til they have completed their tion of a statute and to adopt
international students and pacted students 15 days to students’ ability to remain in course of study, as the provi- that interpretation when it
force international students update their Student and the U.S. and work post-grad- sion does not specifically men- reenacts its statutes without
currently studying at Harvard Exchange Visitor Informa- uation. Joseph Edlow, nom- tion post-graduation practical change. One can argue the re-
to transfer or risk falling out tion System (SEVIS) record inated by the president to be training. The court upheld the verse of Lollilard v. Ponce in a
of status. After Harvard filed with employment informa- the Director of USCIS, stated STEM OPT extension, rea- challenge to a proposed DHS
a complaint, a U.S. district
the following of the OPT soning that it is a valid exer- rule that would limit or evis-
program during his Sen- cise of DHS’ authority under cerate OPT. OPT is so baked
ate confirmation hearing: in INA § 214(a)(1) to promul- into the longstanding inter-
“I think the way in gate regulations that autho- pretation of INA § 101(a)
which OPT has been rize an F-1 student’s stay in (15)(F)(i) ought to be, which
handled over the past the U.S. beyond graduation. allows a student to enter the
four years, with the help The court further noted that U.S. in F-1 status to complete
of certain decisions com- “practical training not only en- a course of study, and affords
ing out of the D.C. Cir- hances the educational worth additional time beyond the
cuit Court, have been a of a degree program, but of- course of study through Op-
real problem in terms of ten is essential to students’ tional Practical Training. This
misapplication of the law. ability to correctly use what is how Congress intended §
What I want to see they have learned when they 101(a)(15)(F)(i) to operate
would be essentially a reg- return to their home coun- over the several decades even
ulatory and sub-regulato- tries. That is especially so in as it amended the Immigra-
ry program that would STEM fields, where hands-on tion and Nationality Act of
allow us to remove the work is critical for understand- 1952 several times. Thus, any
ability for employment ing fast-moving technological curtailment of OPT would
authorizations for F-1 and scientific developments.” arguably not be authorized
students beyond the time Judge Pillard, who authored under INA § 101(a)(15)(F)(i).
that they are in school.” the opinion, noted that the Any efforts by the Trump
Endlow was un- concept of post-coursework administration to abolish
m of doubtedly referring practical training for foreign OPT could also be vulnera-
CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC to the U.S. Court of students predates the Immi- ble to challenges under the
Appeals for the D.C.
Procedure
gration and Nationality Act Administrative
Circuit’s decision in of 1952, pointing to a 1947 Act (APA). Abolishing OPT
Washington Alliance of rule which “allowed foreign would clearly have a devastat-
Technology Workers v. students ‘admitted temporar- ing impact on U.S. schools, as
the U.S. Department ily to the United States . . . international student are like-
of Homeland Security for the purpose of pursuing a ly to enroll in fewer numbers
(“Washtech v. DHS”), definite course of study’ to re- if they cannot pursue practi-
which upheld the STEM main here for up to eighteen cal experience in their fields
OPT extension as autho- months following completion of study. Perhaps the Trump
2 6th Floor rized under the Immi- of coursework for ‘employ- administration would argue
gration and Nationality ment for practical training’ as that international students in
www.TheIndianEYE.com
