Cases & Developments

The Department of State (the Department) announced enhanced vetting procedures for student and exchange visitor visa applicants (F, M, and J categories), placing an emphasis on national security and public safety. Under the new guidance, consular officers will conduct a comprehensive review of applicant’s online presence, with all applicants instructed to set social media accounts as public to facilitate this process. The Department noted that scheduling of F, M, and J nonimmigrant visa applications will resume soon, and applicants should check the relevant embassy or consulate website for appointment availability. In the announcement, the Department underscored that visa adjudication is a matter of national security, and that obtaining a U.S visa is a privilege—not a right. 

The American Council on Education (ACE) wrote a letter to the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, expressing deep concern about the recent announcement that U.S. embassies and consular sections are pausing new student visa interviews to prepare for additional social media screening and vetting. It states that this pause would greatly impede the ability of international students already admitted to colleges and universities to enter the country in a timely manner and pursue their studies. The letter states that there is concern that imposing a broad pause on all student visas would send a message that our nation no longer welcomes international students and scholars, as well as hinder our ability to compete for the world’s best and brightest minds to study in the U.S. The letter also expresses concern about the revocation of student visas beginning with Chinese students who have already been vetted and are completing their education in the U.S. and requests new information on the policy as soon as possible. The letter cites an anticipated economic impact of nearly $44 billion from international students choosing to study in the U.S., emphasizing that an extended pause in scheduling interviews would create harm beyond enrollment numbers, and encourages the State Department to make any pause on student visa processing as short as possible.  

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, the President and Fellows of Harvard College allege that defendants, the United States Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Student and Exchange Visitor Program; John Doe, in their official capacity as Director of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program; James Hicks, in his official capacity as Deputy Assistant Director of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program; United States Department of Justice; Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; United States Department of State; and Marco Rubio, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Plaintiff alleges that the Department of State, revoked plaintiff’s Student Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification without process or cause, impacting over 7,000 visa holders. Plaintiff alleges this revocation is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiff asked that the Court declare defendants’ action revoking plaintiff’s SEVP certification unconstitutional and/or unlawful because it violated the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the APA; and as remedy to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants, their agents, and anyone acting in concert or participation with defendants from (1) implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving effect to the unlawful revocation of plaintiff’s SEVP certification, (2) giving any force or effect to the Department of Homeland Security’s May 22, 2025, “Revocation Notice,” and (3) issuing a “Notice of Intent to Withdraw” or otherwise initiating proceedings to withdraw plaintiff’s SEVP certification in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercise of its rights under the First Amendment, because of the viewpoint of plaintiff’s First Amendment protected speech, or because of plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the April 11 demand letter. The Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), finding plaintiff made a sufficient showing that absent the TRO it will sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties, and the TRO was justified to preserve the status quo pending a hearing. Thus, it enjoined defendants from implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving effect to the revocation of plaintiff’s SEVP certification and from giving any force or effect to the Department of Homeland Security’s May 22, 2025, revocation notice. Plaintiff’s complaint can be found here.