Overview
A new federal immigration rule threatened to put international student-athletes on a four-year clock just as the NCAA moved to a five-year eligibility framework. The rule would have replaced the longstanding "duration of status" (D/S)1 framework with fixed four-year admission periods for some visa category holders (F, J, and I), regardless of program length. On September 14—one day before the rule was scheduled to take effect—Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts postponed the Final Rule's effective date nationwide and preliminarily enjoined Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from implementing it. The decision preserves, for now, the federal government's D/S framework that accommodates multi-year academic and athletic careers for collegiate athletes.2 The government has appealed to the First Circuit, and the district court has ordered summary judgment briefing to be completed by November 2.3
For international student-athletes and the institutions that recruit them, the postponement temporarily avoids a significant mismatch between federal immigration policy and NCAA eligibility rules. The relief is not final, however. Since the Court postponed the rule without vacating it, the current framework remains subject to change, and athletic departments, compliance offices, and conferences should prepare for the possibility that the four-year cap for international student-athletes could take effect.
The NCAA's "Five In Five" Framework
As Steptoe recently covered, the NCAA implemented a five-year eligibility rule this summer for Division I and II athletes. The rule replaces season-counting requirements with a single five-year window tied to age and college enrollment.4 For athletes who enrolled in 2023 or later, the window begins at the earlier of (1) the athlete's first full-time college enrollment, or (2) the academic year following the athlete's 19th birthday, if that birthday falls before September 1.5
The NCAA framework recognizes that an athlete may need five continuous years in the United States to exhaust eligibility. That timeline fits within the flexibility provided by D/S, but would have conflicted with the four-year limit DHS sought to impose in September.
The DHS Final Rule
On July 17, 2026, DHS published the rule, Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media (the Final Rule),6 scheduled to take effect on September 15. The rule would have replaced D/S with fixed four-year admission periods for F and J visa holders, regardless of program length, and a 240-day cap for I visa7 holders. F or J visa holders needing additional time would have been required to file a Form I-539 extension request.8 Requiring student-athletes to seek extensions through Form I-539 could also create substantial timing uncertainty. Although processing times vary by application category, current USCIS I-539 processing times range from five to eleven months.9 Further, since the rule would not have made premium processing available for these extension requests, student-athletes could have faced prolonged uncertainty regarding their immigration status and athletic eligibility while their applications remained pending. The rule also would have reduced the F-1 departure grace period from 60 days to 30 days, barred F-1 students from pursuing another degree at the same or a lower level, and limited graduate-level transfers and program changes to narrow extenuating circumstances.10
Under the current D/S framework, an F-1 student who needs additional time to complete a program generally obtains a program extension from the school's designated school official through an updated Form I-20, without filing Form I-539, paying a filing fee, or awaiting US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudication. The Final Rule would have shifted that authority from schools to USCIS by requiring a discretionary Form I-539 extension-of-stay adjudication.
For student-athletes, the extension criteria could be particularly consequential if it takes effect. Under the new rule, an extension would require documentation establishing one of three grounds: (i) "A compelling academic reason, such as a change of major or research topic or unexpected research problems," with the regulation specifying that "[d]elays including, but not limited to, those caused by academic probation or suspension or a student's repeated inability or unwillingness to complete his or her course of study are not acceptable reasons for an extension"; (ii) "A documented illness or medical condition that is a compelling medical reason, such as a serious injury, that is supported by medical documentation" from a licensed clinician; or (iii) "Circumstances beyond the student's control, including a natural disaster, national health crisis, or the closure of an institution."11 None of these grounds addresses athletic eligibility.
DHS acknowledged—and declined to accommodate—the rule's particular effect on international student-athletes. Commenters noted that domestic athletes can transfer during allotted winter and spring windows if in good academic standing, but that international athletes "would not be able to transfer and compete like their domestic counterparts if this rule is implemented."12 DHS responded that it "recognize[d] commenters' concerns about international student athletes transferring," but that "[t]he primary purpose of an international student athlete is to successfully complete one's academic program. Student athletes are subject to the same rules that govern all F-1 students."13 The Final Rule therefore provided no athletics-specific pathway, carve-out, or extension ground. An athlete's need for a fifth year of competition falls outside the rule's enumerated criteria.
The District Court's Decision
In Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security,14 a coalition of three higher-education associations and four labor organizations challenged the Final Rule, and Judge Saylor granted interim relief under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act.15 The Court postponed the Final Rule's effective date pending further order or a decision on the merits and preliminarily enjoined DHS from taking additional steps to implement it.16
The Court found the Final Rule arbitrary and capricious in several respects.17 According to the Court, DHS failed to conduct a reasoned cost-benefit analysis, meaningfully consider less restrictive alternatives, respond to significant public comments, or demonstrate a rational connection between the rule and its stated fraud-prevention and national-security objectives.18 To support its national-security rationale, DHS cited examples including attempts to photograph military installations and a Russian intelligence operative who entered on an F-1 visa obtained with a fraudulent Brazilian identity.19 The Court found those examples unpersuasive as justification for the four-year cap because the conduct could occur within four years or under another visa category.20
The Court also granted nationwide relief.21 The Court reasoned that party-specific relief would force more than 5,000 institutions to operate parallel regulatory regimes and would become still more difficult to administer as students transferred or participated in joint-degree programs.22 The Court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' requests for vacatur under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and for summary judgment.23
Thus, for now, F, J, and I nonimmigrants remain subject to the existing D/S framework. The 60-day F-1 grace period, existing transfer and program-change rules, and current second-degree framework also remain in place. As a result, an international student-athlete may still pursue a fifth year of NCAA competition without filing the separate immigration extension request contemplated by the Final Rule, provided the athlete maintains their visa status and makes normal progress toward a course of study. Graduate transfers and dual- or joint-degree programs—common options for international athletes who have completed an undergraduate degree but retain a season of eligibility—likewise remain available.
What's Next
On October 9, the parties proposed different paths forward in response to the Court's October 2 directive. DHS requested a stay of district court proceedings pending its expedited interlocutory appeal or, alternatively, cross-motions for summary judgment. DHS also argued that complete vacatur is not mandatory and that remand without vacatur or limited vacatur may be appropriate, and maintained that any final declaratory or vacatur relief must be tailored to redress the concrete injuries of the plaintiffs before the Court.24
In their filing, the plaintiffs opposed a stay and urged the Court to issue a prompt final judgment. They asked the Court either to rule on the already briefed summary-judgment motion or to adopt an expedited supplemental-briefing schedule ending October 30, followed by vacatur of the Final Rule under Section 706. In their view, a final judgment could narrow the First Circuit appeal to the merits of the APA challenge and avoid successive appeals.25
On October 16, the Court ordered an expedited summary-judgment schedule. Defendants must transmit the administrative record to plaintiffs and file an administrative record index by October 23; any summary-judgment motions and supplemental memoranda are due October 26; and reply memoranda are due November 2.26
The First Circuit separately granted the government's unopposed motion to expedite on October 9 and issued a briefing notice on October 19 setting November 9 as the deadline for the government's opening brief and appendix.27
Key Takeaways
The DHS rule's postponement is meaningful, but temporary. Athletic departments, compliance offices, and conferences should continue to operate under D/S while closely monitoring both the First Circuit appeal and the district court proceedings. A First Circuit decision reversing or narrowing the preliminary injunction could restore the four-year cap on short notice; district court vacatur under Section 706 would provide more durable protection against reinstatement than the current Section 705 postponement. Contingency planning remains especially important for international student-athletes whose fifth year of NCAA eligibility would depend on narrow, discretionary extension criteria that do not account for athletic eligibility and that DHS has expressly declined to tailor to international student-athletes.
Steptoe's Sports Integrity Team is monitoring developments at the intersection of immigration policy and NCAA eligibility. The team advises institutions, conferences, athletic departments, international student-athletes, and other stakeholders on eligibility planning, compliance frameworks, and litigation risk as the regulatory landscape develops.
1 With limited exceptions, since 1978 (for F-1 students) and 1985 (for J-1 students), the United States has admitted foreign students for their D/S, rather than for a fixed period. See Admission of Nonimmigrant Students for Duration of Status, 43 Fed. Reg. 54,618, 54,620 (Nov. 22, 1978); Nonimmigrant Classes; Admission Period and Extensions of Stay, 50 Fed. Reg. 42,006, 42,007 (Oct. 17, 1985). In substance, D/S generally permits F, J, and I nonimmigrants to be admitted to the US for the duration of their program or authorized purpose, subject to maintaining lawful status, rather than until a fixed departure date. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(5)(i); id. § 214.2(j)(1); id. § 214.2(i)(1).
2 See Mem. & Order on Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Presidents' Alliance on Higher Educ. & Immigr. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2026), ECF No. 50; Prelim. Inj. Order Postponing Effective Date of Final Rule, id., ECF No. 51.
3 See Notice of Appeal, Presidents' Alliance, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2026), ECF No. 53, docketed, No. 26-2112 (1st Cir.); Elec. Clerk's Notes for Status Conference, Presidents' Alliance, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Oct. 2, 2026), ECF No. 56; Defs.' Briefing on Case Mgmt., Production of the Admin. Rec., and Form of Final J., Presidents' Alliance, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2026), ECF No. 59; Pls.' Proposed Sched. & Procedural Plan, Presidents' Alliance, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2026), ECF No. 60; Order on Certification of Admin. Rec. and Supp'l Briefing on Mot. for Summ. J., Presidents' Alliance, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Oct. 2, 2026), ECF No. 56.
4 See NCAA Division I and Division II Age-Based Eligibility Rules, https://www.ncaa.org/eligibility-center/division-i-and-division-ii-age-based-eligibility-rules/ (last visited Oct. 23, 2026).
5 Id.
6 Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media, 91 Fed. Reg. 44,976 (July 17, 2026).
7 Although the rule also applies to I visa holders, this alert focuses on the visa categories ordinarily used by international student-athletes competing on NCAA teams. An I visa is available to "a bona fide representative of foreign press, radio, film, or other foreign information media, who seeks to enter the United States solely to engage in such vocation." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(I).
8 Id. at 44,977.
9 See USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times.
10 Id. at 44,979, 45,124-25, 45,150.
11 91 Fed. Reg. at 45,126.
12 91 Fed. Reg. at 45,059.
13 Id. at 45,060.
14 No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS.
15 See Presidents' All. on Higher Educ. & Immigr. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 26-13799-FDS, slip op. at 46 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2026).
16 Id., slip op. at 48.
17 Id., slip op. at 27.
18 Id.
19 Id., slip op. at 7-8.
20 Id.
21 Id., slip op. at 48.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 See Defs.' Briefing on Case Mgmt., Production of the Admin. Rec., and Form of Final J., Presidents' Alliance, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2026), ECF No. 59.
25 See Pls.' Proposed Sched. & Procedural Plan, Presidents' Alliance, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2026), ECF No. 60.
26 Order on Certification of Admin. Rec. and Supp'l Briefing on Mot. for Summ. J., Presidents' Alliance, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Oct. 16, 2026), ECF No. 61.
27 See Order, Presidents' Alliance on Higher Educ. & Immigr. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 26-2112 (1st Cir. Oct. 9, 2026); Appellant's Briefing Notice, Presidents' Alliance on Higher Educ. & Immigr. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 26-2112 (1st Cir. Oct. 19, 2026).
