US judge blocks Trump Adm’s visa rules for foreign students, journalists

WASHINGTON, Sept 15: A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a Trump administration rule imposing stricter limits on the duration of visas for foreign students and journalists, providing relief to international students, including those from India.

The preliminary injunction issued by Massachusetts district judge F Dennis Saylor IV came a day before the new rules were scheduled to take effect. The judge said the policy would likely cause “catastrophic” harm to the US economy and higher education system, while rejecting the administration’s arguments that the restrictions were necessary to protect national security.

Saylor also rejected the Government’s request to limit the relief only to the plaintiffs, saying that doing so would require parallel regulatory systems and potentially inconsistent decisions over which students and institutions would be covered.

The rule, finalised in July, sought to impose a four-year limit on student and exchange visitor visas and a 240-day limit on visas for journalists, except those from China. Chinese journalists would have faced a 90-day limit under the postponed rules.

The policy allowed students and journalists to seek extensions, but approval would have been at the discretion of Department of Homeland Security officials, with no provision to appeal a rejected extension.

Several organisations, including higher education institutions and labour unions, had challenged the rules in court. The plaintiffs represent nearly 600 public and private institutions, although the US has more than 5,000 higher education institutions.

Harvard President Alan M. Garber had earlier criticised the four-year limit, noting that a typical PhD programme takes at least six years.

The DHS argued that the restrictions would help curb fraud and prevent visa overstays.

However, Saylor also raised concerns that the rule could potentially be used against foreign journalists critical of the Government or DHS officials, questioning whether its stated national security rationale was the policy’s only purpose. (Agencies)