
In about half of U.S. states, international students' visas are being revoked. What's behind it.
Students and schools say there is mass confusion about the reasons behind the revocations, the legality of the government's actions and what options those without visas or status now have when it comes to getting their education.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
What are the student visas being affected, and what do they do?
Most of the students who have been targeted are studying in the United States under the F-1 and J-1 visas. The F-1 visa allows noncitizens to enter the United States as full-time students at accredited education institutions. And to qualify for those visas, people must meet certain criteria, including approval from ICE, proficiency in English or enrollment in courses that lead to English proficiency and sufficient funds to support themselves during their entire courses of study.
The J-1 visa, available to students, teachers, researchers and other specialists, allows people to participate in approved programs for studying, conducting research, receiving training or demonstrating special skills. And after their programs are complete, they are required to return to their countries within 30 days.
Which schools are being affected?
The State Department began revoking visas last month, targeting foreign-born students at schools across the country. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last month that the State Department has revoked hundreds of students' visas, taking aim at international students who participate in political activism.
'It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,' Rubio said at a news conference last month.
Those students have included Mahmoud Khalil, of Columbia University, a pro-Palestinian activist and green-card holder, whom ICE arrested and detained in early March, and Rümeysa Öztürk, of Tufts University, whom immigration officials apprehended on the street near the school a few weeks later.
Other cases fall outside the bounds of political protest, like that of Doğukan Günaydın, a Turkish student at the University of Minnesota, who was arrested in front of his home in St. Paul at the end of March because of a 2023 drunken driving conviction.
Shao said he has encountered many other cases of students in fields from materials engineering to epilepsy research. Some students were given vague reasons for the visa revocations, while others weren't given any at all. Many schools said they were in the dark, as well. Stanford, for example, said it found out about six visa revocations while it was doing a routine check of its Student and Exchange Visitor Information System database, which maintains information about nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors.
'It really feels like somebody wrote a computer program: 'If arrested, then terminate,'' Shao said.
The State Department directed NBC News to comments spokesperson Tammy Bruce made Tuesday at a media briefing.
'We don't discuss individual visas because of the privacy issues involved,' Bruce said. 'What we can tell you is that the department revokes visas every day in order to secure our borders and to keep our community safe.'
The Department of Homeland Security recently created a task force that uses data analytic tools to scour international students' social media histories for potential grounds to revoke their visas, three sources familiar with the operation told NBC News. They also said that the task force is searching for charges and criminal convictions on students' records as well.
Why is the Trump administration targeting students?
The Trump administration hasn't said publicly why such students are being singled out over others. But immigration attorneys and policy experts say it all goes back to the centerpiece of the Trump campaign: mass deportations. Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an attorney and policy analyst with the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, said it is an example of the administration's taking a 'whole-of-government' approach to that immigration strategy.
'Here we're seeing the Department of State working to cancel the visas of many students and those actions being done in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, which is the agency in charge of prosecuting these deportation cases in court,' Bush-Joseph said.
In the cases of Öztürk and other students who have been arrested in recent weeks, the Trump administration has cited a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. It allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary determines their presence in the country would result in 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.'
Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, said it's also an effort by the government to send a 'clear message about who is unwelcome in the United States,' especially since most students appear to be from nonwhite backgrounds.
'U.S. immigration policy seems to be driven by xenophobia, white nationalism and racism right now,' Mukherjee said.
What legal rights do students have?
Multiple students have sued the government because of the revocations.
The government maintains the right to revoke visas for various reasons, including DUI convictions or related offenses. They can also be revoked for national security purposes at the discretion of the State Department.
'Given the fact that the executive branch has such far-reaching discretion in many cases, it can be really difficult to determine what's going on in specific cases,' Bush-Joseph said. 'As a quick example of this, for a green card, someone can meet all of the requirements and still be denied just as a matter of discretion.'
Typically, Shao said, students are unable to appeal visa revocations. However, they can still reapply for visas. And they still have other rights, including the ability to stay in the country, as long as they don't leave and try to re-enter.
However, many of the international students' legal statuses were terminated, as well, making them potentially subject to detention and deportation, Shao said. But the government typically doesn't have the right to remove legal status without actions such as crimes of violence or unauthorized work or dropping out of school.
'Getting your visa terminated is not automatically a reason to reject your status,' Shao said.
Still, many provisions of the Constitution protect all people, regardless of their status. And that means the students still have the right to defend themselves under due process and can't be deported without it, Mukherjee said. The Supreme Court affirmed that Monday in its ruling on the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, she said. The court ruled that people have the right to challenge the use of the act and should be given time to challenge their detentions before they are taken out of the country.
'These are some basic principles of law, basic principles underlying the Constitution, and should be respected by all three branches of government,' she said. 'We are at the brink of a breakdown in the rule of law and the immigration space.'
Often, other forms of immigration relief are available to international students, including humanitarian relief.
And while some students have received messages from the State Department urging them to self-deport, Mukherjee said they don't necessarily have to listen. Instead, she advises them to seek legal support.
'Simply because the notice says you have to depart the United States immediately or you need to depart from the United States within five days, that doesn't make it lawful or true or correct or accurate,' Mukherjee said.
Shao also said schools should step in to provide support.
'You accepted these kids to come,' Shao said. 'The school should try to help the kids as much as they can.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
John Swinney branded an 'analogue politician' by UK Labour minister in 'second-rate' NHS app row
UK ministers have hit out at Scotland's 'second-rate' NHS app as it promises a 'supercharged' version south of the border. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... First Minister John Swinney has been branded an 'analogue politician in a digital age' over a row about Scotland's 'second-rate' NHS app. UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the SNP Government needed to act quickly as patients in Scotland were 'missing out'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The verbal swipe comes as Mr Streeting launches a plan to give patients in England a 'doctor in your pocket' to make healthcare technology part of everyday life. UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting | Lucy North/Press Association There has been an NHS England app for six years, but a similar version in Scotland will only go on a limited trial at the end of this year. A full rollout is not expected until 2030. Mr Streeting said: 'The UK Labour government is embracing technology to deliver a better NHS for patients and their families, giving them more control and transparency over their treatment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'In John Swinney, the SNP have an analogue politician in a digital age, and patients in Scotland are missing out. The SNP have record funding and complete control of the NHS in Scotland. 'There's no excuses for this and it just shows why Scotland can't afford a third decade of the SNP. 'It needs a new direction with Anas Sarwar as first minister.' The English app has 35 million users and UK ministers say they will improve their version by 2028, allowing patients to book and check hospital appointments, interact with specialists, and visit 'AI doctors' for advice. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad First Minister John Swinney | Jane Barlow/Press Association A Scottish app was first announced in 2021, but will not be launched until December this year. The app's functionality will initially be restricted to dermatology patients only at NHS Lanarkshire, and limited to only notifying them of appointments. If the trial is successful, it will be rolled out in other health boards and then be fully introduced in five years' time. A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'The NHS England app was developed to support England's NHS trusts and is configured specifically to their IT infrastructure. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We have, however, already engaged extensively with NHS England and with other health systems to explore how we can take learning from other approaches in developing our service.


STV News
2 hours ago
- STV News
Australian woman guilty of triple murder after death cap mushroom lunch
Erin Patterson has been found guilty of triple murder after serving her estranged husband's family poisonous mushrooms, as ITV News' Fred Dimbleby reports Australian woman Erin Patterson has been found guilty of murdering three of her estranged husband's relatives by deliberately serving them poisonous death cap mushrooms. The jury returned a verdict after six days of deliberations, following a nine-week trial that gripped Australia and media worldwide. She faces life in prison and will be sentenced at a later date, although no hearing has been scheduled yet. Patterson showed no emotion as the verdicts came back guilty, but blinked rapidly as they were read. She was also found guilty of attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, who survived the meal. The deaths of Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson shocked the quiet Australian town of Leongatha, Victoria, and quickly captured both national and international attention. At the centre of the tragedy was a seemingly innocuous family lunch on July 29, 2023, hosted by Erin Patterson, who had invited her former in-laws, Don and Gail (the parents of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson), along with Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson and Heather's husband, Ian. Patterson, who shares two children with Simon, prepared a homemade beef wellington, a meal that would soon become the focus of a months-long murder investigation. The dish allegedly contained death cap mushrooms, one of the world's deadliest fungi. All four guests fell critically ill within 24 hours. Three later died in hospital, while Ian Wilkinson required a liver transplant after spending nearly two months recovering, including time in intensive care. Ian Wilkinson (left) was the only survivor of the lunch which killed his wife Heather (left) and Don and Gail Patterson (middle). / Credit: 7 News Patterson initially denied wrongdoing, claiming she accidentally used a mix of mushrooms sourced from an Asian grocery store and dried fungi, which she said were gifted by a friend. However, police alleged inconsistencies in her account, including the disposal of a food dehydrator and deleted digital records, which became key points of scrutiny during the trial. Throughout the proceedings, the case stirred debate across Australia. The lack of clear motive, paired with public fascination and tabloid fervour, made the trial one of the most closely followed in recent Australian criminal history. What were the key moments in the trial? The prosecution alleged Patterson deliberately served a poisoned meal to her estranged in-laws and extended family. They argue she prepared a special untainted portion for herself. The defence argued the poisonings were a tragic accident, claiming Patterson unknowingly used contaminated mushrooms, became ill herself, and panicked afterwards, out of fear she would be wrongly blamed. Here are the key points of evidence the trial discussed: Food dehydrator : Patterson purchased a food dehydrator on April 28, 2023, just two hours after a known sighting of death cap mushrooms was posted online near Loch. The prosecution alleges she saw the post and collected mushrooms that day. Patterson testified she purchased the dehydrator to preserve and dry mushrooms, which she regularly stored in containers in her pantry to use later in cooking. : Patterson purchased a food dehydrator on April 28, 2023, just two hours after a known sighting of death cap mushrooms was posted online near Loch. The prosecution alleges she saw the post and collected mushrooms that day. Patterson testified she purchased the dehydrator to preserve and dry mushrooms, which she regularly stored in containers in her pantry to use later in cooking. Phone location: Cell tower data places her near Outtrim on May 22, 2023, shortly after death caps were recorded growing there. The prosecution claims this supports the theory she foraged for mushrooms twice during the short toxic season. Patterson admitted to using a mixture of store-bought mushrooms and dried ones from her pantry, but insists she never intentionally included toxic mushrooms and did not forage near Loch or Outtrim. The defence argues that mobile tower data can be imprecise and may show signals from within her home, undermining the claim that she traveled to foraging locations. Cell tower data places her near Outtrim on May 22, 2023, shortly after death caps were recorded growing there. The prosecution claims this supports the theory she foraged for mushrooms twice during the short toxic season. Patterson admitted to using a mixture of store-bought mushrooms and dried ones from her pantry, but insists she never intentionally included toxic mushrooms and did not forage near Loch or Outtrim. The defence argues that mobile tower data can be imprecise and may show signals from within her home, undermining the claim that she traveled to foraging locations. Fake cancer: Patterson admitted during the trial that she lied to the lunch guests and lured them to the meal under the pretext that she had cancer and needed their support whilst she underwent surgery. The prosecution argues this lie was invented to cover her true motivations and reduce suspicion, suggesting she never expected them to survive the meal. The defence claims Patterson in reality was making plans to have gastric bypass surgery, in a bid to take control over concerns she had about her weight but was too embarrassed to share this with her guests. Patterson admitted during the trial that she lied to the lunch guests and lured them to the meal under the pretext that she had cancer and needed their support whilst she underwent surgery. The prosecution argues this lie was invented to cover her true motivations and reduce suspicion, suggesting she never expected them to survive the meal. The defence claims Patterson in reality was making plans to have gastric bypass surgery, in a bid to take control over concerns she had about her weight but was too embarrassed to share this with her guests. Different plates: Survivor Ian Wilkinson told the court that all guests were served on grey plates, while Patterson used an orange one – implying she knew not to eat the poisoned food. Patterson claimed she prepared only one batch of beef wellington and ate the same meal as her guests, she denied reserving a safe portion for herself. She claimed she does not own grey plates. Survivor Ian Wilkinson told the court that all guests were served on grey plates, while Patterson used an orange one – implying she knew not to eat the poisoned food. Patterson claimed she prepared only one batch of beef wellington and ate the same meal as her guests, she denied reserving a safe portion for herself. She claimed she does not own grey plates. Orange cake: After guests left, Patterson claims she ate large amounts of orange cake brought by her former mother-in-law, Gail Patterson, claiming she struggles with an eating disorder. Prosecutors challenged her claim that she made herself vomit afterwards, arguing that self‑induced vomiting would not eliminate the lethal amanitin toxin. Patterson told the court that she started to develop gastro-like symptoms hours after the lunch and took herself to hospital to receive fluids two days later. After guests left, Patterson claims she ate large amounts of orange cake brought by her former mother-in-law, Gail Patterson, claiming she struggles with an eating disorder. Prosecutors challenged her claim that she made herself vomit afterwards, arguing that self‑induced vomiting would not eliminate the lethal amanitin toxin. Patterson told the court that she started to develop gastro-like symptoms hours after the lunch and took herself to hospital to receive fluids two days later. Withheld information: When Patterson was hospitalised with symptoms, she initially did not inform doctors that any remnants of foraged mushrooms may have been in the meal, something prosecutors say could have helped save lives. She testified that she did not immediately connect her own gastrointestinal symptoms with mushroom poisoning. When Patterson was hospitalised with symptoms, she initially did not inform doctors that any remnants of foraged mushrooms may have been in the meal, something prosecutors say could have helped save lives. She testified that she did not immediately connect her own gastrointestinal symptoms with mushroom poisoning. CCTV disposal: On August 2, days after the fatal lunch, Patterson was seen on CCTV dumping the dehydrator. Prosecutors argue this was a deliberate attempt to destroy crucial evidence. Forensic analysis revealed remnants of death cap mushrooms inside the appliance. Patterson says she discarded and lied about the dehydrator not to hide evidence but out of panic after child protection services contacted her, fearing it could be used to justify taking her children away. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country


ITV News
4 hours ago
- ITV News
Mushroom murder trial: Erin Patterson guilty after serving relatives toxic death cap mushroom lunch
Erin Patterson has been found guilty of triple murder after serving her estranged husband's family poisonous mushrooms, as ITV News' Fred Dimbleby reports Australian woman Erin Patterson has been found guilty of murdering three of her estranged husband's relatives by deliberately serving them poisonous death cap mushrooms. The jury returned a verdict after six days of deliberations, following a nine-week trial that gripped Australia and media worldwide. She faces life in prison and will be sentenced at a later date, although no hearing has been scheduled yet. Patterson showed no emotion as the verdicts came back guilty, but blinked rapidly as they were read. She was also found guilty of attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, who survived the meal. The deaths of Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson shocked the quiet Australian town of Leongatha, Victoria, and quickly captured both national and international attention. At the centre of the tragedy was a seemingly innocuous family lunch on July 29, 2023, hosted by Erin Patterson, who had invited her former in-laws, Don and Gail (the parents of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson), along with Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson and Heather's husband, Ian. Patterson, who shares two children with Simon, prepared a homemade beef wellington, a meal that would soon become the focus of a months-long murder investigation. The dish allegedly contained death cap mushrooms, one of the world's deadliest fungi. All four guests fell critically ill within 24 hours. Three later died in hospital, while Ian Wilkinson required a liver transplant after spending nearly two months recovering, including time in intensive care. Patterson initially denied wrongdoing, claiming she accidentally used a mix of mushrooms sourced from an Asian grocery store and dried fungi, which she said were gifted by a friend. However, police alleged inconsistencies in her account, including the disposal of a food dehydrator and deleted digital records, which became key points of scrutiny during the trial. Throughout the proceedings, the case stirred debate across Australia. The lack of clear motive, paired with public fascination and tabloid fervour, made the trial one of the most closely followed in recent Australian criminal history. What were the key moments in the trial? The prosecution alleged Patterson deliberately served a poisoned meal to her estranged in-laws and extended family. They argue she prepared a special untainted portion for herself. The defence argued the poisonings were a tragic accident, claiming Patterson unknowingly used contaminated mushrooms, became ill herself, and panicked afterwards, out of fear she would be wrongly blamed. Here are the key points of evidence the trial discussed: Food dehydrator: Patterson purchased a food dehydrator on April 28, 2023, just two hours after a known sighting of death cap mushrooms was posted online near Loch. The prosecution alleges she saw the post and collected mushrooms that day. Patterson testified she purchased the dehydrator to preserve and dry mushrooms, which she regularly stored in containers in her pantry to use later in cooking. Phone location: Cell tower data places her near Outtrim on May 22, 2023, shortly after death caps were recorded growing there. The prosecution claims this supports the theory she foraged for mushrooms twice during the short toxic season. Patterson admitted to using a mixture of store-bought mushrooms and dried ones from her pantry, but insists she never intentionally included toxic mushrooms and did not forage near Loch or Outtrim. The defence argues that mobile tower data can be imprecise and may show signals from within her home, undermining the claim that she traveled to foraging locations. Fake cancer: Patterson admitted during the trial that she lied to the lunch guests and lured them to the meal under the pretext that she had cancer and needed their support whilst she underwent surgery. The prosecution argues this lie was invented to cover her true motivations and reduce suspicion, suggesting she never expected them to survive the meal. The defence claims Patterson in reality was making plans to have gastric bypass surgery, in a bid to take control over concerns she had about her weight but was too embarrassed to share this with her guests. Different plates: Survivor Ian Wilkinson told the court that all guests were served on grey plates, while Patterson used an orange one - implying she knew not to eat the poisoned food. Patterson claimed she prepared only one batch of beef wellington and ate the same meal as her guests, she denied reserving a safe portion for herself. She claimed she does not own grey plates. Orange cake: After guests left, Patterson claims she ate large amounts of orange cake brought by her former mother-in-law, Gail Patterson, claiming she struggles with an eating disorder. Prosecutors challenged her claim that she made herself vomit afterwards, arguing that self‑induced vomiting would not eliminate the lethal amanitin toxin. Patterson told the court that she started to develop gastro-like symptoms hours after the lunch and took herself to hospital to receive fluids two days later. Withheld information: When Patterson was hospitalised with symptoms, she initially did not inform doctors that any remnants of foraged mushrooms may have been in the meal, something prosecutors say could have helped save lives. She testified that she did not immediately connect her own gastrointestinal symptoms with mushroom poisoning. CCTV disposal: On August 2, days after the fatal lunch, Patterson was seen on CCTV dumping the dehydrator. Prosecutors argue this was a deliberate attempt to destroy crucial evidence. Forensic analysis revealed remnants of death cap mushrooms inside the appliance. Patterson says she discarded and lied about the dehydrator not to hide evidence but out of panic after child protection services contacted her, fearing it could be used to justify taking her children away.