Court Temporarily Blocks DHS Rule Ending Duration of Status for F, J, and I Nonimmigrants
On September 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) from implementing its Final Rule eliminating Duration of Status (“D/S”) for F, J, and certain I nonimmigrants.
The Final Rule was scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026. Because of the court’s order, the rule did not take effect on that date. The existing D/S framework therefore remains in place for now.
What does this mean?
Under the existing rules, an F-1 student admitted for D/S does not have a fixed expiration date on Form I-94. The student is authorized to remain in the United States for the duration of the authorized academic program, practical training, and applicable departure period, provided the student continues to comply with the requirements of F-1 status.
A person can, however, violate F-1 status even though the Form I-94 continues to display “D/S.” A student who stops attending school, engages in unauthorized employment, or otherwise violates the requirements of F-1 status may be out of status and subject to removal.
Nevertheless, under the existing D/S framework, an F-1 student generally does not begin accruing unlawful presence solely because a status violation occurred. Unlawful presence generally begins after USCIS formally determines, while adjudicating an immigration benefit request, that the person violated status, or after an immigration judge enters the relevant exclusion, deportation, or removal order.
Accordingly, the enjoined Final Rule did not cause F-1 D/S holders to begin accruing unlawful presence automatically on September 15, 2026.
Could the new rule still take effect?
Yes. The preliminary injunction is temporary, and the federal government may appeal. If an appellate court stays or reverses the injunction, or if the government ultimately prevails in the litigation, DHS may be permitted to implement the Final Rule.
However, implementation would not necessarily occur retroactively or automatically. The effective date, transition provisions, and treatment of unlawful presence would need to be determined based on the applicable court order and any subsequent DHS guidance.
Individuals should therefore not assume that the injunction guarantees lawful stay through any particular future date.
Important distinction: Out of status vs. unlawful presence
Being “out of status” and accruing “unlawful presence” are not the same.
A person may be out of F-1 status without yet accruing unlawful presence. Even without unlawful presence, however, a status violation can result in removal proceedings and may affect eligibility for reinstatement, OPT, a change or extension of status, adjustment of status, or other immigration benefits.
In addition, a prior USCIS decision or immigration-court order may already have started the person’s unlawful-presence period. Departing the United States after more than 180 days of unlawful presence may trigger a three-year inadmissibility bar, while departure after one year or more may trigger a ten-year bar.
Anyone who is currently out of F-1 status, has received a USCIS denial decision, or is considering international travel or consular processing should obtain an individualized legal review before departing the United States or filing another immigration application.
This announcement provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration consequences depend on each person’s admission record, I-94, SEVIS history, maintenance of status, prior applications, and agency or court decisions.
Judy Chang Law Firm, National Immigration Law Firm
Copyright© Judy J. Chang, Esq. All rights reserved. 9/16/2026
The information contained in article is provided for general information only and should not serve as a substitute for legal advice.
http://www.judychanglaw.com / contact@judychanglaw.com