With US grudging visas, students veer to EB-5; applications for Green Card category up by more than 100%
The events in the past few weeks that have led to this panic-like situation include a stop on new F-1 visa appointments — a tussle between the Trump administration and Harvard University; tightening of F-1 visa rules; heightened scrutiny of students' records, including social media posts; student and exchange visitor information system (SEVIS) record glitches; and increased scrutiny at ports of entry.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Following the crack-down on student visas, many Indians currently in the US and those considering colleges there are exploring the EB-5 route. The EB-5 visa programme provides a path to a Green Card , or permanent residency , to foreign investors putting in $800,000 (about Rs 7 crore).In the past four to five months, in Donald Trump 's second term as US President, immigration lawyers have seen more than 100% jump in EB-5 applications from Indian students, they told ET.A limited number of visas, however, are available each year under the category about 700 for India. With the US the most popular destination for higher studies 86,000 Indians there in 2024-experts see a scramble for EB-5 this year."There is a sharp jump in EB-5 applications," said Rajneesh Pathak, founder of Global North Residency and Citizenship, an immigration law firm. "But unlike previous years, when we had most-ly H-1B visa holders applying, the interest from F-1 visa holders has risen by 100% over the last few months."F-1 is a non-immigrant visa that allows international stu-dents to enter and stay in the US to pursue full-time academic studies, with limited work authorisation.Parents do not want to take any chances in the current political environment in the US, said experts. 'They are willing to invest in EB-5 to secure the future of their children,' said Pathak.The events in the past few weeks that have led to this panic-like situation include a stop on new F-1 visa appointments — a tussle between the Trump administration and Harvard University; tightening of F-1 visa rules; heightened scrutiny of students' records, including social media posts; student and exchange visitor information system (SEVIS) record glitches; and increased scrutiny at ports of entry.'The F-1 visa, once as a bridge to opportunity, now feels like a tightrope,' said Akshat Gupta, head of India & UAE, US Immigration Fund (USIF), an EB-5 Regional Centre operator.USIF has seen a 100% rise in F-1 visa holders seeking the EB-5 visa so far this year since January, as against 2024.The idea that international students, even at globally respected universities, are finding themselves in the middle of political or administrative disputes is unsettling, experts say. Earlier, adjustment of status would allow students to stay in the US, apply for work and travel authorisation, they said.However, with the Trump administration discouraging international students, those between 19- 24 years of age, especially in competitive fields like computer science, biotech and finance, are mostly applying for EB-5. US law firm Chugh LLP has seen a sharp uptick in EB-5 requests in the past few months from Indian students on F-1 visas.'Roughly one-third of my new immigration consultations now involve students worried about how US politics could affect their status,' said Navneet S Chugh, attorney, who runs the firm. Last year, Chugh's firm was handling one or two EB-5 inquiries a quarter from students but this spring, it is fielding five to seven a month.'The Harvard dispute simply reminds them how quickly rules can change,' said another lawyer.Davies and Associations, another immigration law firm in the US, is also seeing a significant interest from Indian students and H-1B holders to pursue the EB-5 visa route.The current I-526E adjudication timelines are significantly faster than in previous years.'In some instances, what once took three years is now being processed in as little as three months,' said its founder and chairman, Mark Davies. This flexibility allows applicants to live and work freely in the US while their Green Card cases are pending, said Davies.Students holding a Green Card have legal protection that F-1 visa holders do not have. 'We are advising students to maximise their time within the US and avoid unnecessary foreign travel or extended breaks,' said Sukanya Raman, country head, Davies and Associates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
History of US role in India-Pakistan issues: Four wars, the hyphen, and Trump
US President Donald Trump has yet again claimed that he 'got India and Pakistan to stop fighting' by using trade talks as a bargaining chip. 'We talk trade, and we say we can't trade with people who are shooting at each other and potentially using nuclear weapons… They understood and they agreed, and that all stopped,' Trump said on May 31. New Delhi has repeatedly emphasised that the recent ceasefire in Operation Sindoor came after bilateral talks with Pakistan, and that trade with US did not figure in the calculations. While Trump is known for making extraordinary statements, his claims of 'stopping a potential nuclear war' between India and Pakistan touch a raw nerve for New Delhi. Trump's rhetoric — deliberately or unwittingly — is 'hyphenating' India and Pakistan again, something India has long fought against. Secondly, it goes against India's established position that its problems with Pakistan have to be resolved bilaterally, without the need for third party intervention. And as far as third parties go, the US on many occasions has acted more in Pakistan's interests than India's. What is India's hyphenation with Pakistan, and why does New Delhi oppose it? Why is New Delhi against third party intervention? And what has the USA's role been in India-Pakistan hostilities in the past? We explain. The history of the hyphenation and of India's distrust of third parties are intertwined. Barely two months after independence in August 1947, infiltrators from Pakistan attacked Jammu and Kashmir. Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten advised India to go to the UN, which it did on January 1, 1948. India had expected that its rights over a territory which legitimately acceded to it would be respected at the UN. However, the British did not support India, which many Indians perceived as a betrayal. Historian Ramachandra Guha writes (in the book India after Gandhi) of the January-February 1948 UN sessions, 'India suffered a significant symbolic defeat when the Security Council altered the agenda item from the 'Jammu and Kashmir question' to the 'India-Pakistan question'.' This is how the formal hyphenation on international fora began. India's objection to this treatment broadly are — such a framing puts India and Pakistan on the same level when the two parties are not comparable actors, India is the victim of Pakistan's territorial aggression; and that India's identity, as a democratic country and significant economy, can't be tied to Pakistan's. New Delhi believes that the world should engage with India in its own right and not as one half of a conflict zone. This is a goal it has been able to achieve to a large degree. The UN episode also put India off bringing in bigger powers, while Pakistan preferred internationalising the Kashmir issue. During the Cold War years, the West, led by the US, saw Pakistan as a critical ally in the tussle with the Soviet Union, while the non-aligned India was considered less dependable. Later, the war in Afghanistan and the US 'war on terror' ensured Pakistan's importance for the US and the West, often to India's disadvantage. Also, India with its potential to emerge as a leader of the Global South, does not believe it depends on bigger powers to help solve its problems. The role of the US To understand this in brief, the USA's actions during four wars fought by India can be considered. Alongside this, India and US have had a storied bilateral relationship quite independent of the Pakistan issue. The 1947 India-Pakistan war: Quite contrary to what Trump is doing now, in 1947, the US wanted India and Pakistan to resolve their issues bilaterally. A position paper sent by the US Secretary of State to the embassy in India says, 'We would much prefer that the Kashmir question be settled by direct negotiation between India and Pakistan. However, in the event that a resolution requesting the intervention of the United Nations, and in particular requesting the United Nations to supervise a referendum in Kashmir, is introduced by India or Pakistan and supported by the United Kingdom, the United States Delegation should also support the resolution.' The 1962 India-China war: In this war, the US helped India, airlifting military supplies. However, it used the goodwill thus generated to get together with the UK and pressure India to talk to Pakistan. Six rounds of talks were held, with no progress. Then US Undersecretary of State Chester Bowles wrote about that period, 'We had also—rather ineptly—seized upon India's acute need for US assistance as a lever to force India to make concessions to the Pakistanis in regard to Kashmir, which no democratic Indian Government could make and survive.' While the fighting was on, then US President John F Kennedy is believed to have stopped Pakistan from opening another front against India. Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow of the American think tank Brookings, wrote in 2015, 'Then Pakistan President Ayub Khan told Kennedy that he wanted 'compensation' from India in Kashmir for Pakistan's neutrality during the war. Kennedy made clear to Ayub that no such compensation would be tolerated, and that Pakistani intervention in the war in the Himalayas would be seen by Washington as a hostile act.' The 1971 India-Pakistan war: This was the time the US backed Pakistan most forcefully and publicly, even dispatching warships towards the Bay of Bengal. The US Department of State has a website called Office of the Historian. Its article on the 1971 war says that as Pakistan had recently helped the US and China start diplomatic ties, Washington decided to back Pakistan against India, but the 'action against the mass protests in East Pakistan was well-publicized and widely condemned, which limited the extent to which the US Government was willing to help the Pakistani Government…' Eventually, America's actions during this war damaged its prestige 'in both nations, in Pakistan for failing to help prevent the loss of East Pakistan and in India for supporting the brutality of the Pakistani regime's actions…' The Kargil war of 1999: If the previous war had seen the US veer very close to Pakistan, the Kargil war redefined its relationship with India. Riedel wrote in 2019, 'When the US determined that Pakistan had deliberately violated the Line of Control near Kargil, [then President Bill] Clinton did not hesitate to blame Pakistan for risking a broader war. For the first time, an American administration was siding publicly with India against Pakistani aggression.' Clinton played a major role in getting Pakistan to retreat behind the LOC. After this, Clinton visited the subcontinent in 2000. He was the first US President to come to India in over 20 years. He spent five days in India, in contrast with just a few hours in Pakistan. Apart from these wars, the US has also worked to defuse tensions after the Parliament attack in 2001 and the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008. However, preventing tensions from escalating is different from meditating on Kashmir or other bilateral issues, which Trump has been making claims and offers about. Yashee is an Assistant Editor with the where she is a member of the Explained team. She is a journalist with over 10 years of experience, starting her career with the Mumbai edition of Hindustan Times. She has also worked with India Today, where she wrote opinion and analysis pieces for DailyO. Her articles break down complex issues for readers with context and insight. Yashee has a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from Presidency College, Kolkata, and a postgraduate diploma in journalism from Asian College of Journalism, Chennai, one of the premier media institutes in the countr ... Read More
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
NATO east flank backs Ukraine membership, Poland, Romania and Lithuania say
VILNIUS -Nordic, Baltic and central European NATO members are committed to Ukrainian membership of the military alliance, the leaders of Poland, Romania and Lithuania said following a summit of the so-called B9 and Nordic countries on Monday. NATO allies declared their support for Ukraine's "irreversible path" towards membership at last year's Washington summit. But President Donald Trump has since said that prior U.S. support for Ukraine's NATO bid was a cause of the war and has further indicated that Ukraine will not get membership. Russian President Vladimir Putin's conditions for ending the war in Ukraine include a demand that Western leaders pledge in writing to stop enlarging NATO eastwards, and lift a chunk of sanctions on Russia, Reuters reported last week. Poland, Romania and Lithuania said on Monday, after a meeting of Nordic, Baltic and Eastern European leaders in the capital of Lithuania, that the region remains committed to the path towards Ukrainian NATO membership, and called for further pressure on Russia, including more sanctions. "We stand firm on Allied decision and commitment regarding Ukraine's irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership. Ukraine has the right to choose its own security arrangements and to decide its own future, free from outside interference," they said in a joint statement released on behalf of all meeting participants. The meeting, held ahead of a NATO summit at The Hague later this month, included Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘It's not us, it's Trump': China accuses US of violating Geneva trade truce, vows firm response - The Economic Times Video
Tensions are mounting once again between the U.S. and China over trade truce. Beijing has strongly rejected US President Donald Trump's accusations that China violated the Geneva trade pact. Instead, China claimed that it's the US that has 'seriously violated' the agreement with new restrictions on chip tech and student visas. The Chinese Commerce Ministry warned that it will take 'resolute' and 'forceful' action if Washington continues down this path.
