ICE’s 2020 Rule on International Students: Unlawful Status and Its Impact

Overview — what happened in July 2020

In early July 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued directive language that would have required nonimmigrant students on F-1 and M-1 visas to take at least some in-person classes during the fall 2020 semester in order to remain in the United States. Under the policy’s logic, students enrolled in fully online programs would be considered out of status and therefore “unlawfully present” in the U.S., unless they left the country or transferred to a program offering in-person instruction. The announcement provoked immediate alarm among students and universities because many schools had shifted instruction online for health and safety reasons. ICEHolland & Knight

Within days, major institutions—including Harvard and MIT—filed suit, arguing that ICE had acted arbitrarily and unlawfully. Following that litigation and a wave of backlash from universities, advocacy groups, and members of Congress, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ICE reversed course and rescinded the policy change. Universities and international student advocates hailed the rollback, but the episode had already produced enormous uncertainty, stress, and the specter of potential immigration consequences for students. Harvard UniversityHarvard Gazette

The rule: key elements (clearly stated)

The July 2020 ICE guidance had two central elements that alarmed the international student community:

1. Existing students taking only online classes in fall 2020 were to leave the U.S., transfer to a school offering in-person instruction, or take other mitigating actions. The guidance suggested that students taking a fully online course load could be considered out of status. ICEHolland & Knight
2. New international students enrolled in fully online programs would not be issued visas to enter the U.S., and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) would be instructed not to admit those students at the border. This meant admitted students with “initial status” arriving from abroad could be barred if their program was online. Axios

Put more simply: ICE’s message was that online-only enrollment could jeopardize nonimmigrant student status, potentially forcing students to leave the U.S. or see their visa privileges curtailed.

Immediate consequences: panic, planning chaos, and litigation

The guidance triggered immediate practical and emotional consequences:

• Student anxiety. International students—many of whom had built lives, jobs (on-campus employment), and research projects in the U.S.—faced the possibility of sudden departure. For those who could not travel (due to closed borders, lack of flights, or health risks), the guidance raised the frightening possibility of becoming “out of status.” Teen Vogue
• Universities scrambling. Colleges and universities were forced to consider emergency plans: could they offer in-person classes safely? Could they shift hybrid models to maintain students’ status? Many institutions said they were not prepared to reopen fully, citing public-health guidance. For Good
• Lawsuits and legal action. Harvard and MIT filed suit in U.S. District Court, asking for an immediate injunction to block enforcement. Other universities, associations, and advocacy groups joined the challenge. The litigation emphasized procedural failings and called the sudden policy change arbitrary given the pandemic context. Within about a week, ICE and DHS announced they would rescind the guidance and revert to the March 2020 accommodations that had allowed more online coursework due to COVID-19. Harvard UniversityHarvard Gazette

Unlawful presence: the legal stakes explained

A core reason the guidance was terrifying for students was the legal concept of “unlawful presence.” This is not mere semantics; accruing unlawful presence can trigger severe immigration consequences.

• What is unlawful presence? In U.S. immigration law, unlawful presence generally refers to a period when a noncitizen remains in the United States beyond the authorized period of admission or without having been admitted at all. Under INA §212(a)(9)(B), accruing certain lengths of unlawful presence can create bars to re-admission. USCIS
• The re-entry bars. If a noncitizen accrues more than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence and then departs, that person is subject to a 3-year bar on re-admission. If they accrue one year or more, then depart, they may face a 10-year bar. The practical effect: once a student’s nonimmigrant status terminates and they remain in the U.S. past any authorized period, time counting toward these bars may begin and can affect future ability to return. USCISisss.umn.edu
• Establishing unlawful presence can be complex. Not every out-of-status period automatically converts into unlawful presence for the purposes of the three- or ten-year bars; there are legal nuances and exceptions. But the risk is real and consequential enough that students and universities were rightfully alarmed by any guidance that could convert lawful F-1 presence into prolonged out-of-status time. Immigrant Legal Resource Center

Because ICE’s July guidance suggested that students engaged only in online study might be considered out of status, many interpreted that to mean the accumulation of unlawful presence could follow—hence the urgent concern.

How institutions and students responded (practical maneuvers)

During the rule’s brief life and the immediate aftermath, universities and students took multiple steps to reduce risk and press for clarity:

• Legal challenges and coalitions. As noted, Harvard/MIT filed suit; dozens of other universities and advocacy organizations joined public criticism and calls for reversal. These suits argued the change was arbitrary, lacked proper notice and process, and endangered public health planning. Harvard UniversityFor Good
• Administrative options. Some universities explored hybrid course options or limited in-person components to ensure students could satisfy the alleged ICE requirement. Others applied for temporary waivers or asked for specific SEVP (Student and Exchange Visitor Program) guidance. But many institutions made clear that reopening campuses purely to meet an ICE administrative whim was not feasible or safe. For Good
• Student advocacy. International student groups used petitions, social media, and contact with elected officials to make the human case—emphasizing that their lives, housing, and safety could not be shifted overnight.
• Legal counseling. Campus international student offices and private attorneys provided expedited advice on transfer options, visa implications, and departure planning in case the rules were enforced.

Because of the litigation and pressure, ICE rescinded the directive and restored the March 2020 pandemic-era guidance that had allowed more online course work without terminating status—effectively averting the immediate legal risk. Advocacy groups like NAFSA praised the rescission as protecting students. NAFSAHarvard Gazette

What the episode revealed about immigration policy processes

Even though the rule was rescinded, the episode exposed important governance and process issues:

• Policy by press release vs. notice-and-comment. Critics said the guidance resembled an abrupt administrative edict rather than a deliberative policy process. This prompted questions about when agencies must follow standard rulemaking or provide adequate justification. Litigation relied partly on those procedural defects.
• Coordination (or lack thereof) across agencies. Universities noted conflicting signals from DHS, ICE, and State Department guidance about visas, consular processing, and border admissions. The confusion highlighted the need for coherent cross-agency communication when policies affect millions of people. Study in the States
• The role of litigation and public pressure. The rapid reversal showed how lawsuits and public outcry can force administrative reversals—especially when a rule appears to lack legal grounding or disregard practical consequences during an emergency.

Long-term consequences and lingering fears

Although ICE reversed the policy, the incident left several durable impacts:

• Erosion of trust. International students reported increased anxiety about future status stability. When administrative guidance can pivot rapidly, students worry that another change—less reversible—could be announced. That insecurity affects decisions about study, housing, and employment. Teen Vogue
• Institutional contingency planning. Universities have since developed more robust contingency plans for international students, including clear communications protocols, legal resources, and advocacy strategies.
• Policy vigilance. Student advocates and university groups remain alert to administrative moves affecting student categories, knowing the stakes (e.g., unlawful presence) are high.
• Legal clarifications. The episode prompted demand for clearer legal rules about when online coursework does or does not count for status maintenance during emergencies—a debate that continues in regulatory and academic circles. ICE

Practical advice for international students (non-legal guidance)

If you are—or were—an international student affected by abrupt guidance like ICE’s July 2020 notice, consider these practical steps. This is general information, not legal advice; for personal legal strategy, consult a qualified immigration lawyer or your university’s international student office.

1. Stay informed from authoritative sources. Use your university’s international student office updates and official government pages (SEVP/ICE/DHS) rather than rumors or social media. ICEStudy in the States
2. Document everything. Keep emails, notices, and screenshots of guidance and communications from your school and immigration authorities—this record can be important if you need to demonstrate intent or compliance.
3. Talk to your school’s international student advisor. They’ll know local policy, transfer options, and any campus-level remedies (e.g., temporary in-person offerings).
4. Consult an immigration attorney for status questions. If you believe you may have accrued unlawful presence or face status termination, a licensed immigration attorney can analyze your facts and advise on waivers or other forms of relief.
5. Avoid panic moves that could worsen the situation. For example, unauthorized employment or other overt status violations can trigger additional legal problems.
6. Consider alternatives cautiously. Transferring to another DLI (designated learning institution) with in-person options might be possible, but do it under advisor guidance to ensure SEVIS and visa mechanics are handled correctly.

Policy lessons: how to prevent a repeat

Policymakers, immigration administrators, and universities can draw several lessons:

• Use clear, coordinated communications. Policies affecting students require multi-agency coordination and transparent public messaging, especially during emergencies. Conflicting signals are highly disruptive.
• Avoid ad hoc rule changes during crises without process. Emergency contexts require flexible thinking, but rushing to change status rules by press release creates legal vulnerability and harms people.
• Design contingency regulatory mechanisms. Rather than ad hoc directives, agencies could issue time-limited, clearly justified emergency rules with review triggers and stakeholder consultation—especially where unlawful presence is implicated.
• Prioritize student welfare in policy calculus. For students whose lives and finances are deeply integrated with U.S. campuses, legal status decisions should weigh humanitarian and public-health factors alongside immigration goals.

Timeline (concise)

• March 2020: SEVP issued pandemic-era guidance allowing flexibility for online coursework for already-enrolled students. Study in the States
• July 6, 2020: ICE/SEVP issued guidance suggesting students in fully online programs could be out of status and subject to removal or required to leave. ICE
• July 8, 2020: Harvard and MIT filed suit against ICE/DHS. Harvard University
• July 14, 2020: Following litigation and broad backlash, ICE/DHS rescinded the July 6 guidance and returned to the March guidance (rescission and restoration of flexibility). Harvard GazetteNAFSA

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Did the July 2020 rule ever go into full effect?
A: The rule was announced and briefly enforced in guidance, but major litigation and public pressure led DHS/ICE to rescind it within about a week. Practically, the March 2020 guidance remained in effect for fall 2020 after the reversal. Harvard Gazette

Q: Could students still have accrued unlawful presence because of the rule?
A: Because the rule was rescinded quickly, most students were not forced into the kinds of long out-of-status periods that trigger the three- or ten-year bars. However, the episode created fear that a similar directive could reoccur; students should check their own status records and consult legal counsel if unsure. USCIS explains how unlawful presence accrual and re-entry bars work in detail. USCIS

Q: What if a student was forced to leave because of the guidance?
A: If a student left the U.S. after being deemed out of status (or if they left voluntarily due to the policy), they should consult an immigration attorney about potential accrual of unlawful presence, waiver options, and re-entry prospects. The facts matter: length of stay, reasons for departure, and prior history all factor into potential bars. USCIS

Q: Will DHS/ICE issue similar rules in future emergencies?
A: It’s impossible to predict. The episode shows agencies can issue rapid guidance, but it also demonstrates that legal checks and public pressure can force reversals. Students and institutions should advocate for processes that build stability and humane consideration into emergency rules.

Select authoritative resources & citations

• ICE / SEVP: “SEVP modifies temporary exemptions for nonimmigrant students taking online courses during the COVID-19 emergency.” ICE
• Harvard University media release on litigation vs. SEVP guidance. Harvard University
• Washington Post coverage of ICE’s July 2020 guidance and its aftermath. The Washington Post
• USCIS: explanation of unlawful presence and the 3- and 10-year bars. USCIS
• NAFSA statement praising rescission of the ICE guidance. NAFSA

(Each of the above citations corresponds to official pages and major reporting that explained the guidance, legal response, and consequences.)

Final thoughts

ICE’s July 2020 directive was a short-lived yet seismic administrative action because it touched the precarious center of international students’ lives: lawful status tied to course modality. Its announcement produced immediate distress, legal action, and an eventual reversal—but the episode’s deeper lesson remains. Immigration rules that affect people’s daily life and long-term mobility should be made with deliberation, clarity, and stakeholder input. Students, universities, and advocates should use the memory of 2020 to push for stability, humane emergency protocols, and transparent policymaking that reduces the risk of future shocks—especially those that can lead to unlawful presence and long-term exclusion.

If you want, I can:

• convert this into a WordPress-ready longform article with subhead anchors, pull quotes, and SEO meta tags;
• produce a shorter explainer for affected students with a checklist of immediate steps and legal resources; or
• draft a template letter that student groups might use to contact their school’s international office or elected representatives.

Which would help you most?Think