(UNITED STATES) — International students and U.S. universities have important procedural rights when the federal government threatens a school’s ability to host F-1 students or pauses immigration benefits under new security-screening policies.
1) Overview: the Yale-backed amicus brief and the First Circuit case
The immediate flashpoint is Harvard University v. Department of Homeland Security, an appellate case now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Harvard challenges the federal government’s attempt to rescind Harvard’s authorization to enroll international students through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).
Yale University joined dozens of other institutions in an amicus curiae filing supporting Harvard.
An amicus curiae brief is a “friend of the court” filing. It comes from a non-party who believes the case affects broader interests.
Higher-education institutions often file amicus briefs when a dispute could change compliance expectations. They also file when a ruling could disrupt international enrollment.
The right at issue
For F-1 students, the core “right” is not a guarantee of a visa or admission. It is the right to fair process when government action threatens lawful status pathways.
That includes clear notice, an opportunity to respond when required, and consistent application of published rules.
For schools, the parallel interest is the ability to keep SEVP certification through established regulatory procedures. SEVP certification is the gateway for issuing Forms I‑20. It also supports SEVIS reporting and campus compliance systems.
If SEVP certification is revoked, consequences can cascade quickly. Students may lose access to new I‑20s, transfers, and routine status administration. Students can also face status uncertainty, even if they complied with every rule.
Warning: A student’s F‑1 status is tied to both the student’s compliance and the school’s SEVIS standing. When a school’s SEVP status is threatened, students should seek immediate guidance from their DSO and counsel.
2) Official government positions and statements: what is binding, and what is not
DHS and USCIS messaging matters, but not all messaging is law. Students should distinguish public statements from formal policy instruments.
DHS public framing
In public statements about SEVP enforcement, DHS has framed the ability to host foreign students as a privilege tied to compliance. DHS has also linked enforcement to national security and public safety concerns.
That framing signals enforcement priorities. It does not, by itself, replace statutes or regulations.
DHS statements have also asserted authority to revoke SEVP certification based on institutional noncompliance. In the Harvard dispute, DHS has claimed the university failed “simple reporting requirements.” The dispute includes alleged demands tied to protest activity records. Those factual issues are being litigated.
USCIS “Hold and Review” memo is different
USCIS’s policy memorandum PM‑602‑0194 describes an adjudication framework called “Hold and Review.” This is operationally different from SEVP certification actions.
- SEVP actions target the school’s certification and its ability to sponsor F‑1 students.
- “Hold and Review” targets the adjudication timeline for individual immigration benefit applications.
A press release or spokesperson statement can foreshadow enforcement. It may also explain an agency’s position. But a press release usually does not change legal standards on its own.
A signed policy memo can change internal adjudication steps. It still must operate within governing law. That includes the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), implementing regulations, and constitutional limits.
3) Key facts and policy details: SEVP actions, “Hold and Review,” and who may be affected
SEVP is administered under DHS. Regulations on school certification and oversight appear at 8 C.F.R. § 214.3. Student maintenance rules for F‑1 status appear at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f). The statutory backbone is INA § 101(a)(15)(F) and INA § 214.
SEVP certification actions and student spillover
When DHS targets a school’s SEVP certification, students can experience practical harms even before final resolution. Common pressure points include delays in issuing initial or transfer I‑20s and confusion about SEVIS record continuity during transfer.
- Delays in issuing initial or transfer I‑20s.
- Confusion about SEVIS record continuity during transfer.
- Reinstatement risk if a SEVIS record is terminated.
- Travel risk at reentry, due to heightened scrutiny or documentation gaps.
Students should remember that CBP admission at the border is discretionary. A valid visa does not guarantee entry. That principle is longstanding in immigration practice.
What “Hold and Review” means in practice
Under PM‑602‑0194, USCIS may place certain pending benefit requests into a hold status for additional screening. The memo describes a case-by-case review.
- Longer adjudication times with no clear end date.
- Additional background checks.
- Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notices of Intent, depending on the case type.
- Delayed approvals that affect work authorization start dates.
This can matter for F‑1 students applying for OPT or STEM OPT. Those benefits are authorized by regulation, not by statute. They are governed primarily by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10) and (f)(11).
Even when a student is eligible, timing is critical. An EAD delay can derail onboarding, licensing, or payroll. It can also create gaps between program end and employment start.
Deadline Watch: OPT and STEM OPT are timing-driven benefits. Missing a filing window or a DSO recommendation date can permanently foreclose the request. Confirm dates with your DSO before filing.
“High-risk country” scope and retroactive re-review
The memo’s scope is tied to a presidential proclamation framework. The policy identifies a set of countries for heightened screening. The exact scope details and effective dates are summarized elsewhere in this package.
The memo also contemplates retroactive re-review of prior approvals within a defined timeframe. Agencies can, in some circumstances, reopen or revisit prior decisions. The mechanism depends on the benefit type and the agency.
- USCIS may issue an RFE, a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), or a revocation notice for certain petitions.
- DOS may revoke visas in limited circumstances.
- ICE may take enforcement action if it believes a person lacks status.
Retroactive review creates uncertainty. It may also raise due process questions in individual cases. Outcomes will depend on the person’s record and the benefit type.
Warning: Do not ignore USCIS notices during a hold or re-review. Missed deadlines can lead to denial, and denials can trigger status and employment consequences.
4) Context, significance, and legal tensions: autonomy, security, and due process
SEVP is an institutional compliance system. A single certification decision can affect thousands of students. Many of those students have no role in institutional compliance disputes.
That dynamic raises recurring fairness concerns. It also explains why universities file amicus briefs. Their argument is often that sweeping certification penalties can function like collective punishment.
Academic freedom arguments and government compliance framing
Universities sometimes assert that aggressive SEVP enforcement chills campus speech and research. “Chilling effect” means people stop lawful activity because they fear punishment.
In this context, institutions claim potential harms such as reduced international recruitment, loss of researchers and lab continuity, and interrupted degree timelines.
- Reduced international recruitment.
- Loss of researchers and lab continuity.
- Interrupted degree timelines.
- Strain on SEVIS compliance operations.
The government, by contrast, often frames student-hosting as conditional. It emphasizes reporting obligations, monitoring, and national security. Both narratives can appear in the same case record.
Due process and agency authority in appellate posture
The Harvard case is now in an appellate posture. Appeals can extend timelines and increase uncertainty. Appellate courts typically review legal questions, agency authority, and whether required procedures were followed.
The constitutional baseline is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Due process analysis is fact-specific. It often turns on what interest is at stake and what procedures were provided.
Many immigration disputes also implicate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). APA claims often allege lack of statutory authority, arbitrary decision-making, or failure to follow required procedures.
No single case guarantees a result for every school or student. Outcomes can also vary by circuit. Here, the governing appellate court is the First Circuit.
5) Impact on students and universities: enrollment, adjudication friction, OPT timing, and risk steps
Enrollment volatility and planning pressure
International enrollment can change quickly when policies shift. Even talk of SEVP revocation or expanded screening can change applicant behavior. Students may defer admission, choose another country, or avoid travel.
Universities may respond with internal compliance audits, tighter SEVIS data checks, expanded DSO training, and contingency plans for transfers and teach-outs.
These measures are not admissions of wrongdoing. They are common risk responses when SEVP scrutiny increases.
OPT and STEM OPT timing risks during “hold” periods
If a student’s OPT or STEM OPT application is held, the most common practical problems are timing and employment eligibility.
- Filing on time matters more than speed. Late filing can be fatal.
- EAD delivery controls I‑9 onboarding in most cases.
- Employer coordination is essential if a start date must move.
Students should also avoid unauthorized employment. Unauthorized work can terminate F‑1 status. It can also create long-term inadmissibility issues in some contexts.
Retroactive re-review for previously approved benefits
People with prior approvals may worry about reopening. Not every case will be revisited. But students should prepare for possible USCIS contact.
- Keep complete copies of every filing and approval notice.
- Save I‑20s, transcripts, and proof of full-time enrollment.
- Document OPT employment, hours, and supervisor attestations.
- Track travel history and maintain passport validity.
What counts as waiving rights: Students often lose options by departing the U.S. mid-problem, missing USCIS deadlines, or admitting facts without counsel. Get advice before taking irreversible steps.
What to do if your rights are violated
If you believe SEVIS action, a benefit hold, or an enforcement step violated required procedures, consider these routes.
- Start with your DSO for SEVIS accuracy issues. Ask what was reported and when.
- Use USCIS customer tools where available, but keep written records.
- Seek counsel quickly if you receive an RFE, NOID, revocation notice, or NTA.
- Contact your school’s international office for institutional escalation channels.
Litigation options may exist in some cases. They are complex, time-sensitive, and jurisdiction-dependent. An attorney can assess venue and claims.
6) Official sources and reference links (primary materials)
Use primary sources for updates. Agency practices can change, and memos can be revised.
USCIS Newsroom (policy announcements and operational updates)
USCIS Policy Memoranda (where USCIS posts binding guidance documents)
EOIR Immigration Court information (if enforcement escalates to removal proceedings)
Resources:
This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
