Understanding the Power of Public Comment
Fundamentally, the regulatory process provides one of the most direct ways for individuals to influence government policy. When agencies like the Department of Homeland Security propose new immigration regulations, they are required, by law, to seek public input and respond to significant and relevant comments. This is not merely a formality—agencies have been successfully challenged in court when they fail to consider and respond adequately to well-crafted public comments.
The public comment process differs markedly from legislative advocacy. Rather than lobbying elected officials, you are providing technical input, a real-world perspective, and evidence to government experts who are drafting specific rules. Your goal is not to win a popularity contest—the number of comments supporting or opposing a regulation does not determine the outcome. Instead, the most influential comments provide information, analysis, or perspectives that help agencies improve their proposed rules or understand consequences they had not previously considered.
Critical Warning: Your Comments Will Be Publicly Visible
Before you submit any comment, be mindful that all public comments become part of the permanent public record. Anyone can search and view your comment on Regulations.gov, including your name and any personal information you choose to include. Comments remain publicly accessible indefinitely, even after the final rule is published.
If you are concerned about privacy, consider:
- Using your initials rather than your full name
- Avoiding specific personal details that could identify you
- Focusing on general principles rather than your specific immigration case
- Understanding that your comment may be cited in legal challenges or media coverage
Despite these privacy considerations, participating in the regulatory process remains one of the most effective ways to influence immigration policy directly.
The Anatomy of an Effective Comment
Based on best practices from both government guidance and successful advocacy, effective public comments typically include five key elements:
1. Introduction and Credibility
Explain why you are qualified to comment on this regulation. This might include your status as an F-1 student, your experience with the immigration system, your role as a parent of an international student, or your professional expertise. Agencies value comments from those with direct experience with the systems being regulated.
2. Background and Specificity
Clearly identify which specific part of the proposed regulation you are addressing. Rather than commenting on the entire rule, focus on particular provisions that you can discuss with authority and detail.
3. Analysis and Evidence
This is the heart of your comment. Provide specific examples of how the proposed rule would affect you or others, what unintended consequences might result, or what additional considerations the agency should evaluate. Include citations to relevant research, data, or legal precedents when possible.
4. Recommendations
Suggest specific alternative approaches or modifications to the proposed rule. Rather than simply opposing a provision, propose constructive solutions that might address the agency's concerns while avoiding harmful consequences.
5. Conclusion
Recap your main arguments and recommendations clearly and concisely.
Sample Comments: Learning from Effective Examples
The following examples demonstrate how different commenters might address various aspects of proposed F-1 student regulations. These are illustrative examples that show effective commenting techniques applied to specific regulatory concerns. Note: These examples are illustrative, and the methodology can be used for any proposed regulations.
Example 1: Undergraduate Student Addressing Transfer Restrictions
Subject: Comment on Proposed F-1 Transfer Restrictions - First Academic Year Prohibition
Introduction: I am writing as a current F-1 undergraduate student at [University Name], where I have been enrolled since fall 2023. My experience navigating the challenges of international education provides me with direct insight into the practical implications of the proposed prohibition on first-year transfers.
Background: I am commenting specifically on proposed 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A), which would prohibit F-1 students below the graduate level from changing programs within their first academic year unless SEVP authorizes an exception.
Analysis: The proposed restriction overlooks the realities that many international students face when making educational decisions from thousands of miles away, often with limited information about U.S. institutions. In my case, the program I initially selected based on online materials proved significantly different from what was described. The curriculum lacked key courses that were listed in the catalog, and the faculty expertise did not align with the program's advertised strengths.
Under the proposed rule, I would have been forced to remain in an unsuitable program for an entire academic year, potentially derailing my educational goals and wasting significant financial resources. The restriction also ignores legitimate reasons for transfer that cannot be anticipated at the time of initial enrollment:
- Unforeseen changes in family financial circumstances that require a transfer to more affordable institutions
- Discovery of misleading program information that only becomes apparent after enrollment
- University closure or loss of accreditation
- Health issues requiring transfer to institutions with better support services
The proposed rule creates a rigid system that treats all early transfers as suspicious, rather than recognizing the legitimate need for flexibility in educational decision-making.
Recommendations: Instead of a blanket prohibition, I recommend the regulations establish clear criteria for justified early transfers, including:
- Documentation of misleading program information
- Evidence of significant financial hardship
- Medical documentation supporting transfer needs
- University closure or accreditation issues
This approach would address the agency's concerns about visa shopping while preserving necessary flexibility for legitimate educational needs.
Request: The proposed first-year transfer prohibition would create unnecessary hardship for international students making good-faith educational decisions. I urge the agency to adopt a more nuanced approach that distinguishes between legitimate educational needs and potential abuse.
Example 2: Graduate Student Parent Addressing OPT Work Authorization Gaps
Subject: Comment on OPT Work Authorization Gap Issues - Impact on Student Families
Introduction: I am the parent of an F-1 graduate student currently on Optional Practical Training (OPT) following completion of her Master's degree in bioengineering. As someone who has supported my daughter through the U.S. education system and witnessed the challenges that international students face, I provide this comment to highlight serious concerns about proposed changes that could create gaps in training authorization during OPT periods.
Background: My comment addresses the omission of OPT from automatic work authorization extensions during pending extension of stay applications, as outlined in proposed 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii).
Analysis: The proposed regulation creates a dangerous bureaucratic trap that could derail the careers of students who have invested years in U.S. education. My daughter's experience illustrates this risk: her current OPT status will expire before her extension application can reasonably be expected to be processed, based on current USCIS processing times.
This creates several interconnected problems:
Employment Disruption: Employers are risk-averse and unlikely to retain employees who may face work authorization gaps due to bureaucratic delays beyond the student's control. My daughter's employer has already expressed concern about potential interruptions.
Career Damage: In competitive fields like bioengineering, any gap in work authorization can permanently damage career trajectories. Research projects cannot be paused, and professional relationships may be irreparably harmed.
The regulation's failure to include OPT in automatic extension provisions, while including on-campus work and CPT, appears arbitrary and creates unequal treatment of different categories of student employment.
Economic Impact on Families: The uncertainty forces families like ours to maintain expensive backup plans, including potential relocation costs in the event of work authorization gaps. This represents a hidden cost the agency has not considered in its economic analysis.
Recommendations: Include OPT in the automatic work authorization extension provisions of 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(viii), consistent with the treatment of other categories of student employment. This change would:
- Eliminate arbitrary distinctions between types of student work authorization
- Reduce administrative burden on USCIS by preventing unnecessary emergency applications
- Protect the significant investments students and families have made in U.S. education
Request: The proposed OPT gap provisions penalize students for government processing delays while providing no corresponding benefit. I urge the agency to extend the same protection to OPT students that it offers in the proposed regulations to other categories of student workers.
Example 3: STEM Graduate Student Addressing Program Change Restrictions
Subject: Comment on Graduate Program Change Prohibition - Impact on STEM Research
Introduction: I am a current PhD candidate in Materials Science, writing to address the proposed prohibition on graduate program changes outlined in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii)(A). My experience in interdisciplinary STEM research demonstrates how this restriction would fundamentally misunderstand the nature of graduate education and scientific research.
Background: The proposed rule would prohibit F-1 students at the graduate level from changing programs at any point during their studies, even when such changes are essential for their research and career development.
Analysis: This restriction reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how graduate education and research function in practice. Graduate programs, particularly in STEM fields, are inherently fluid and adaptive to emerging research opportunities and discoveries.
Research Evolution: My own research initially focused on traditional materials science but evolved to incorporate elements of bioengineering and computer science as my project progressed. This evolution necessitated a transition to an interdisciplinary program that more effectively supported my research direction. Under the proposed rule, such academically justified program changes would be prohibited.
Advisor Relationships: Graduate education depends heavily on advisor-student relationships. When these relationships fail—due to advisor departure, personality conflicts, or research incompatibilities—students often must change programs to continue their studies. The proposed rule would force students to abandon years of research rather than adapt to changing circumstances.
Funding Dynamics: Graduate research funding is often tied to specific programs or departments within an institution. When funding shifts between departments—a common occurrence in interdisciplinary research—students may need to change programs to maintain financial support.
Scientific Innovation: Breakthrough research often occurs at the intersection of disciplines. Prohibiting program changes stifles the kind of intellectual flexibility that drives scientific innovation.
Data Supporting Program Changes: According to the National Science Foundation's Survey of Earned Doctorates, approximately 15% of doctoral recipients report changing their primary field during their graduate studies. This data suggests that program flexibility is a normal and productive part of graduate education, not evidence of fraud or lack of commitment.
Recommendations: Replace the blanket prohibition with a framework that recognizes legitimate academic reasons for program changes:
-
Research-Based Changes: Allow program changes when supported by academic advisors and graduate committees as necessary for research progression.
-
Funding-Driven Changes: The permit program undergoes changes when necessary to maintain research funding or assistantship support.
-
Advisor Departure: Allow program changes when primary advisors leave institutions or are no longer available.
-
Interdisciplinary Research: Recognize that modern research often requires program flexibility to accommodate emerging interdisciplinary opportunities.
Request: The proposed prohibition on graduate program changes would damage U.S. competitiveness in scientific research by forcing artificial rigidity on inherently flexible academic programs. I urge the agency to recognize that program flexibility is a feature, not a bug, of effective graduate education.
Example 4: University Administrator Addressing Implementation Challenges
Subject: Comment on F-1 Regulation Implementation - Institutional Perspective
Introduction: I serve as Director of International Student Services at [University Name], where I oversee F-1 compliance for over 3,000 international students. My fifteen years of experience in international education administration provides insight into the practical implementation challenges posed by the proposed regulations.
Background: This comment addresses multiple provisions of the proposed regulations, focusing on their collective impact on institutional operations and student success.
Analysis: The proposed regulations create a complex web of restrictions that will significantly increase administrative burden while potentially harming student success. Several provisions work together to create particularly problematic scenarios:
Administrative Complexity: The combination of transfer restrictions, mandatory extension applications, and program change prohibitions creates an administrative maze that will require substantial additional staffing and compliance infrastructure. Based on our current caseload, implementing these changes would require at least three additional full-time staff members at an annual cost of approximately $180,000.
Student Success Impact: Our data shows that students who transfer within their first year due to academic mismatch have higher graduation rates than those who remain in unsuitable programs. The proposed restrictions would likely reduce international student success rates.
Competitive Disadvantage: These restrictions place U.S. institutions at a significant disadvantage compared to other countries competing for international students. Canada, Australia, and the UK offer greater flexibility in program and institution changes.
Economic Impact: International students contribute approximately $45 billion annually to the U.S. economy. Regulations that make U.S. education less attractive or accessible could significantly reduce these economic benefits.
Recommendations: The agency should conduct a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis that includes:
- Surveys of international student experiences with current flexibility provisions
- Analysis of economic impact on institutions and local communities
- Comparison with competitor countries' policies
- Assessment of administrative costs imposed on institutions
Additionally, consider implementing these changes through a pilot program at select institutions to assess practical impacts before nationwide implementation.
Conclusion: While the agency's goals of preventing fraud are legitimate, the proposed regulations use a sledgehammer approach that will damage the broader international education system. I urge adoption of more targeted measures that address specific abuses without harming the vast majority of legitimate students.
Technical Tips for Effective Commenting
Finding and Accessing Proposed Regulations
Monitor the Federal Register (federalregister.gov) for proposed immigration rules, or set up email alerts for DHS and USCIS proposed regulations. When you find a relevant rule, note the comment deadline, which is typically 30 to 60 days from publication.
Submitting Your Comment
Use Regulations.gov to submit your comment. You can either type directly into the comment box or upload a document. Include the docket number (found in the Federal Register notice) to ensure your comment is properly associated with the correct rulemaking. We will update this blog entry each time a significant immigration regulation comes up for comment. Please look at the bottom of this write-up.
Strategic Considerations
Timing: Please submit your comment well in advance of the deadline. Comments submitted on the final day may receive less attention due to volume.
Length: There is no length limit, but focus on quality over quantity. A well-reasoned 2-page comment is more effective than a rambling 10-page submission.
Coordination: While identical comments carry little weight, you can coordinate with others to ensure different perspectives are represented. Each person should write their own comment reflecting their unique experience.
Follow-Up: After the comment period closes, monitor for the agency's response to comments when the final rule is published. Agencies must respond to significant comments, and their responses can offer valuable insight into their thought process.
Understanding Agency Response and Next Steps
Note that agencies are not required to adopt suggestions from public comments, but they must respond to significant, relevant comments in their final rule. If an agency fails to respond to substantial comments adequately, the final rule may be challenged in federal court.
As a practical matter, the most effective comments provide information or perspectives the agency had not previously considered. Comments that state opposition without providing reasoning or evidence carry little weight in the regulatory process.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Form Letters: Avoid submitting identical comments with hundreds of other people. Each comment should reflect the individual's unique perspective and experience.
Emotional Appeals Without Evidence: While personal stories can be powerful, they are most effective when combined with data, legal analysis, or policy arguments.
Irrelevant Information: Focus only on the specific regulation being proposed. Comments about broader immigration policy or unrelated regulations dilute your message.
Late Submission: Comments submitted after the deadline typically will not be considered, regardless of their quality.
Inappropriate Tone: Maintain a professional, respectful tone even when strongly disagreeing with proposed policies.
The Broader Impact of Your Participation
Participating in the regulatory process serves multiple purposes beyond influencing the specific rule under consideration. Your comments become part of the permanent public record and may influence future rulemakings on related topics. Comments also help build a record that can be valuable if the final rule is challenged in court.
Furthermore, robust public participation demonstrates to agencies and policymakers that the regulated community is engaged and informed. This can influence how future regulations are developed and the extent to which agencies seek public input during the drafting process.
Bottom-Line
The regulatory process offers a unique opportunity to directly influence immigration policy through technical input and a real-world perspective. While there is no guarantee that your specific suggestions will be adopted, well-crafted comments can and do influence final rules in meaningful ways.
As someone who has participated in numerous rulemakings over the past three decades, I can attest that agencies do read and seriously consider public comments. The key is providing information, analysis, or perspectives that help agencies understand the real-world implications of their proposed rules.
The time you invest in preparing a thoughtful comment is time well spent. It represents one of the most direct forms of civic participation available in our system of government, and it can make a meaningful difference in the policies that affect your life and the lives of others in the international community.
Use your voice. The regulatory process works only when informed members of the public participate actively and thoughtfully.