Indian students reconsider US plans amid visa uncertainties
When 26-year-old Umar Sofi received his acceptance letter from Columbia University's School of Journalism, he thought the hardest part of his journey was over. After trying for three years, Mr Sofi had finally been admitted to his dream university and even secured a partial scholarship. He quit his job in anticipation of the big move. But on 27 May, when the US suddenly paused student visa appointments, the ground slipped from beneath his feet."I was numb. I could not process what had happened," Mr Sofi, who lives in Indian-administered Kashmir, told the BBC. Some 2,000km (1,242 miles) away in Mumbai, 17-year-old Samita Garg (name changed on request) went through a similar ordeal. A day after she was accepted into a top US university to study biochemistry - her first step towards becoming a dermatologist - the US embassy halted student visa appointments."It is scary and stressful," Ms Garg told the BBC over the phone. "It feels like I've been left in the lurch, not knowing when this will end."Both Mr Sofi and Ms Garg now have only a few weeks to secure their visas before the academic year begins in August, but little clarity on whether they can go ahead with their plans. Last month President Donald Trump's administration asked US embassies across the world to stop scheduling appointments for student visas and expand social media vetting of applicants.This wider move followed a crackdown on America's elite universities like Harvard, which Trump accused of being too liberal and of not doing enough to combat antisemitism. Trump's decisions have had far-reaching repercussions in India, which sends more international students to the US than any other country. Over the last month, the BBC spoke with at least 20 students at various stages of their application process, all of whom echoed deep anxieties about their futures. Most chose to remain anonymous, fearing retribution from the US government and worried that speaking out now could hurt their chances of obtaining a visa, or renewing it. Trump's battle on international students explained... in 70 secondsStudents say they 'regret' applying to US universities after visa changesTrump suspends foreign student visas at Harvard
More than 1.1 million international students were enrolled in US colleges in the 2023-24 school year, according to Open Doors, an organisation that collects data on foreign students. Nearly a third of them, or more than 330,000, were from India.Educational consultants report that applications to US universities for the upcoming autumn semester have dropped by at least 30% because of the uncertainty. "Their biggest fear is safety - what if their visas are rejected or they're deported mid-term?" said Nikhil Chopra, founder of TC Global, an international education consultancy.Experts say many students are now either deferring their plans or switching to countries perceived to be more "stable" like the UK, Germany, Ireland and Australia. Prema Unni (name changed on request) was accepted into three US universities for a master's in data analytics. But instead of preparing for the move, he decided to forgo the opportunity altogether."There's uncertainty at every step - first the visa, then restrictions on internships and part-time work, and the constant surveillance while on campus," Mr Unni said. "It is very stressful."The halt on visa interviews is the latest in a series of policies tightening immigration rules for students. A few weeks ago, the US warned that students who drop out or miss classes without proper notification risk having their visas revoked, and could be barred from future entry.These decisions have come around the time of the year when 70% of student visas are issued, or renewed, sparking great unease among Indian students. "No student wants to go to a country and then have the visa policy suddenly change," Chris R Glass, a professor at Boston College told the BBC. "They need stability and options."
The uncertainty will have long-term consequences - both for the aspirations of Indian students, but also for the US's future as a coveted higher education hub - says Prof Glass. Foreign student enrolment in US universities was slowing even before Trump's latest salvo. According to The Indian Express newspaper, the US denied 41% of student visa applications between the fiscal years 2023 and 2024, the highest rejection rate in a decade, and nearly doubling from 2014.Data from Student and Exchange Visitor Information Systems (SEVIS), which tracks foreign students' compliance with their visas, showed a nearly 10% drop in international student enrolments as of March this year compared with the same period in 2024. International students are a financial lifeline for many US colleges, especially regional and state universities offering STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and other master's programmes. These students pay significantly higher tuition fees than US citizens. In the 2023–24 academic year alone, foreign students contributed $43.8bn to the US economy, according to Nafsa, an association of International educators. They also supported over 375,000 jobs. "This really isn't about a short-term disruption of tuition revenue. This is about a long-term rupture in a strategic relationship that benefits both countries," Prof Glass said. For decades the brightest Indian students have depended on an American education in the absence of top quality Indian universities or a supportive research ecosystem. In turn they've helped plug a skills gap in the US. Many land highly sought-after jobs after they finish their courses - in particular, representing a significant pool of skilled professionals in sectors like biotechnology, healthcare and data science - and have even gone on to lead iconic companies. Everyone from Google's Sunder Pichai to Microsoft's Satya Nadella went to the US as students. While this has often led to concerns of a "brain-drain" from India, experts point out that India is simply unable to solve the problem of quality and quantity higher education in the immediate future to provide a domestic alternative to these students.Experts say it will be a lose-lose situation for both countries, unless the cloud of uncertainty lifts soon. Additional reporting by Divya Uppal, BBC India's YouTube team, in Delhi. Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Judge orders US refugee office to reconsider some children's cases
A federal judge said Monday that the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement must reconsider the cases of some migrant children who have been stuck in government custody since the Trump administration changed the identification requirements for would-be family sponsors. The opinion from U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich in Washington, D.C., found that the Trump administration's more stringent regulations caused undue delays for the children and the parents and adult siblings who were hoping to bring the kids into their homes. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "The ruling sends a clear and necessary message: the government cannot trap children in detention simply because their families lack specific documents or legal status,' said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy firm representing some of the migrant children. 'The court's decision is not only a step toward reuniting families — it pushes back against a broader effort to erode long-standing legal protections for children.' Under the Trump rules, migrant children have stayed in shelters for an average of 217 days before being released to family members, according to data from the Health and Human Services Department's Office of Refugee Resettlement. During the Biden administration, migrant children spent an average of 35 days in shelters before being released to sponsors. The Trump administration says adult sponsors who took in migrant children were not always properly vetted, placing some of the children at risk of abuse or exploitation. The new regulations include DNA testing and income verification. They also prohibit sponsor applicants from using foreign passports and documents from other countries to prove identity. Friedrich said there's a compelling reason for the rule changes — an ORR report in 2023 found multiple instances of fraud, including 10 occasions where children were released to sponsors with falsified documents. Still, the judge wrote, there wasn't any advance notice given of the changes, and many of the children in government custody arrived in the United States with the expectation that they had family members and friends who could sponsor them. If they had been aware of the changes, they might not have entered the U.S., the judge wrote. One child who had already been released to live with his sister for two years under the old requirements was taken back into custody after driving without a license. Now, under the new rules, he is stuck in government custody without a potential sponsor, the judge noted. It's likely that the Office of Refugee Resettlement 'acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not providing adequate justification for its new sponsor documentation requirements,' Friedrich wrote. He said the agency wasn't obligated to approve any particular sponsor or to release any individual child, but it cannot create a new blanket policy without explaining how it weighed the disrupted interests of the families and children against other valid concerns.
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
Trump backs ARRESTING Newsom & rages ‘if they spit, we'll hit' as California files lawsuit over LA riots & 200 arrests
Trump vs California Despite the carnage flooding the streets, California's government has said they have the situation under control. Governor Gavin Newsom even accused Trump of "inflaming tensions" by deploying the National Guard. The pair have a long history of heated disputes over policy. Newsom formerly requested Trump remove the guard members, which he called a "serious breach of state sovereignty". Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass added the arrival of troops is a "dangerous escalation". She said: "We do not want to play in to the [Trump] administration's hands." "What we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos provoked by the administration." Trump fired back at California's government as he called them "incompetent". Newsom and Trump reportedly spoke for 40 minutes by phone on Saturday, though details of their conversation have not been disclosed. The deployment of troops marks the first time in six decades that a state's National Guard was activated without a request from its governor, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
Pentagon draws up rules on possible use of force by Marines deployed to LA protests
The Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil, now that the Trump administration is deploying active duty troops to the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. U.S. Northern Command said it is sending 700 Marines into the Los Angeles area to protect federal property and personnel, including federal immigration agents. The 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines are coming from Twentynine Palms, California, and will augment about 2,100 National Guard soldiers in LA responding to the protests. The forces have been trained in deescalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, Northern Command said. But the use of the active duty forces still raises difficult questions. The Marines are highly trained in combat and crisis response, with time in conflict zones like Syria and Afghanistan. But that is starkly different from the role they will face now: They could potentially be hit by protesters carrying gas canisters and have to quickly decide how to respond or face decisions about protecting an immigration enforcement agent from crowds. According to a U.S. official, troops will be armed with their normal service weapons but will not be carrying tear gas. They also will have protective equipment such as helmets, shields and gas masks. When troops are overseas, how they can respond to threats is outlined by the rules of engagement. At home, they are guided by standing rules for the use of force, which have to be set and agreed to by Northern Command, and then each Marine should receive a card explaining what they can and cannot do, another U.S. official said. For example, warning shots would be prohibited, according to use-of-force draft documents viewed by The Associated Press. Marines are directed to deescalate a situation whenever possible but also are authorized to act in self-defense, the documents say. The AP reviewed documents and interviewed nine U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details not yet public, about the guidance being determined for the Marines. The Pentagon also is working on a memo with clarifying language for the Marines that will lay out the steps they can take to protect federal personnel and property. Those guidelines also will include specifics on the possibility that they could temporarily detain civilians if troops are under assault or to prevent harm, the first U.S. official said. Those measures could involve detaining civilians until they can be turned over to law enforcement. Having the Marines deploy to protect federal buildings allows them to be used without invoking the Insurrection Act, one U.S. official said. The Insurrection Act allows the president to direct federal troops to conduct law enforcement functions in national emergencies. But the use of that act is extremely rare. Officials said that has not yet been done in this case and that it's not clear it will be done. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. If their role expands if the violence escalates, it is not clear under what legal authority they would be able to engage, said Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law. 'If in fact those Marines are laying hands on civilians, doing searches, then you have pretty powerful legal concerns,' Goitein said. 'No statutory authority Trump has invoked so far permits this.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tweeted late Saturday that he was considering deploying the Marines to respond to the unrest after getting advice earlier in the day from Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to one of the U.S. officials. Still, the tweet, which was posted to Hegseth's personal X account and not to his official government account, caught many inside the Pentagon by surprise. As late as Monday, the military's highest offices were still considering the potential ramifications. But the Marine Corps were asking broader questions, too: Do they send more senior, experienced personnel so as not to put newer, less experienced troops at risk of potentially making a judgment call on whether to use force against a civilian? What's lawful under a domestic deployment — where troops may end up in a policing role — is governed by the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which forbids seizure of persons, including temporarily restraining them, unless it could be considered reasonable under the circumstances. Troops under federal authorities are in general prohibited from conducting law enforcement on U.S. soil under the Posse Comitatus Act.
