Introduction

On May 12, 2026, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Todd M. Lyons convened a press conference to announce the findings of an enforcement initiative directed at the F-1 student Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. Lyons reported that federal investigators had identified approximately 10,000 F-1 nonimmigrant students whose claimed employers ICE has deemed to be “highly suspect,” and he characterized the announcement as only “the tip of the iceberg.”1 The agency described site visits at which agents found empty buildings, locked doors, multiple unrelated “employers” sharing the same address with no leasehold of record, small residential homes purporting to host hundreds of OPT workers, and offshore personnel based abroad ostensibly “managing” the U.S.-based students in apparent violation of the regulatory requirement of U.S.-based training and supervision.2

The announcement marks one of the most consequential enforcement actions ever directed at the OPT program. Its implications reach well beyond the immediate population of 10,000 students identified by ICE. The matter raises questions about the integrity of the program, the regulatory and statutory authority on which it rests, and the very real legal exposure of F-1 students, employers, and designated school officials (DSOs) whose names appear in records that may now be reexamined by federal authorities. This article explains the OPT program, summarizes the categories of fraud ICE has described, and addresses the legal consequences that may flow from an adverse determination. It concludes with practical guidance for international students, employers, and educational institutions facing the new enforcement posture.

The Optional Practical Training Program: Statutory and Regulatory Framework

The F-1 nonimmigrant student classification is established at section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i). OPT, by contrast, is not a creature of statute. It exists by regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10), promulgated under the general F-1 regulatory framework. The regulation defines OPT as “temporary employment for practical training directly related to the student’s major area of study.” 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii). For an overview of how OPT operates as a benefit of F-1 status, see our overview of Optional Practical Training.

The regulations contemplate three forms of OPT. Pre-completion OPT permits an F-1 student to work part-time during the academic term and full-time during breaks while still pursuing the degree. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(A)(1). Post-completion OPT authorizes up to twelve months of full-time employment following completion of the degree. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(A)(2). Finally, the 24-month STEM OPT extension, available to F-1 graduates of qualifying programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, extends post-completion OPT for an additional twenty-four months. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C). The 24-month extension was created by the 2016 final rule and replaced an earlier 17-month extension that had been invalidated on procedural grounds in Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 14-cv-529 (D.D.C. 2015). For an in-depth treatment of the 2016 STEM OPT rule and its requirements, see our article on 24-Month STEM OPT Extensions and our article on the DHS List of STEM-Designated Programs.

Several compliance mechanisms are integral to OPT and STEM OPT, and they form the backbone of ICE’s current enforcement effort. First, the employment must be directly related to the F-1 student’s major area of study. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(A). Second, students on post-completion OPT may not accrue more than ninety aggregate days of unemployment; students on the 24-month STEM extension may not accrue more than 150 days in total. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(E)(2). Third, students and DSOs are subject to extensive reporting requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(11) and (f)(12), including a 10-day window to report material changes such as a change of employer, address, or job duties. Fourth, STEM OPT participation requires the employer to be a registered participant in good standing in the E-Verify program and to execute Form I-983, “Training Plan for STEM OPT Students,” which sets forth specific learning objectives, supervision arrangements, and wage attestations. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C)(5), (7). Fifth, and most directly relevant to the present enforcement initiative, the regulation expressly authorizes ICE to conduct site visits at the locations of any STEM OPT employer to verify program compliance, including verification that the employer possesses and maintains the ability and resources to provide the structured and guided work-based learning experience described in the Form I-983. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C)(11).

Other features of the program are also of consequence. F-1 students who timely file for a change of status to H-1B may be eligible for cap-gap relief that extends F-1 status and OPT work authorization until October 1 of the relevant fiscal year. See our article on Cap-Gap Relief for Extension of F-1 Status and OPT EAD. Premium processing has been available for certain Form I-765 OPT applications since 2023. See our article on Premium Processing for Certain OPT and STEM OPT Applicants. And OPT terminates automatically when an F-1 student transfers to a different SEVP-certified school or begins study at a new educational level. See our article on the Automatic Termination of OPT After School Transfer or Change in Education Level. Each of these features matters for purposes of the current enforcement effort because each touches on the records that ICE is now examining.

The Patterns of Fraud Identified by ICE

The findings described by Acting Director Lyons at the May 12 press conference fall into several recurring patterns. Each pattern corresponds to a clear regulatory violation, and several may carry criminal exposure as well.

Phantom Worksites

ICE reported visiting addresses listed in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) as the worksites for hundreds of OPT students, only to find empty buildings with locked doors. In multiple instances, several unrelated “employers” had listed the same address despite none of them holding a lease at that location. In one Northern Texas case cited by ICE, an employer’s paperwork represented that it was hosting 500 OPT students. When agents arrived, the employer acknowledged the presence of only three. In a New Jersey example, an employer listed as the host of 150 OPT workers was found by agents to have a single student present, and the employer’s representative was unable to answer basic questions about the others.3

Residential Addresses Hosting Hundreds

Investigators encountered modest single-family homes listed in SEVIS as the worksites for hundreds of OPT students. When agents knocked, occupants reported no knowledge of the business and no employees were present. Such configurations are facially incompatible with the structured, supervised training environment that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C)(7) and the Form I-983 require, and they are exactly the sort of arrangement that the 2016 STEM OPT rule was designed to detect through unannounced site visits.

Offshore “Management”

ICE alleges that in a significant number of cases, OPT beneficiaries were being supervised by personnel based abroad, including in India. The STEM OPT framework expressly requires that the structured and guided practical training be provided by the U.S. employer and that the student be subject to direct supervision in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C)(7)(ii). Offshore management arrangements, where the student’s day-to-day supervision occurs outside the United States, fall outside this regulatory architecture and call into question the foundational attestations of the Form I-983.

Shell Employers and Labor Clearinghouses

ICE described a category of shell entities that exist on paper to provide a sponsorship facade for OPT students while the students are in fact placed with unrelated third-party clients. These arrangements are sometimes accompanied by allegations of financial fraud and may involve the unlawful sale of “employment” status to students who pay the entity for a place on its OPT roster. The phenomenon is not new. F-1 students who have been associated with entities such as those identified in prior enforcement actions have faced consular visa revocation, denials of admission at U.S. ports of entry, denials of changes and extensions of status, and findings of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i).4

Pay-to-Stay Arrangements

In some of the cases ICE described, students themselves paid fees to the purported employer to be listed as employees. Such payments are inconsistent with bona fide employment and convert what is supposed to be a training relationship into the purchase of immigration status. They expose the student to a fraud finding and, potentially, to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1546.

An adverse OPT compliance finding can carry severe and overlapping immigration consequences. Many of these consequences are immediate and procedurally aggressive.

Termination of SEVIS Record and F-1 Status

Where ICE concludes that an F-1 student is engaged in unauthorized employment or that the underlying employment was fictitious, the student’s SEVIS record may be terminated. Termination removes the student from valid F-1 status. An F-1 student who has engaged in unauthorized employment is ineligible for reinstatement of student status under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(16). See our article on Reinstatement of F-1 Student Status for a discussion of the bar.

Unlawful Presence and the 3- and 10-Year Bars

Following SEVIS termination, the student is no longer maintaining status, and unlawful presence may begin to accrue depending on the circumstances. Accrual of more than 180 days of unlawful presence triggers a three-year bar to readmission, and more than one year triggers a ten-year bar, under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I)–(II), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(I)–(II). For a general discussion of unlawful presence and the unlawful presence bars, see our articles on Unlawful Presence and the Unlawful Presence Bars.

The Fraud or Misrepresentation Bar

A more serious and often permanent consequence flows from INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), which renders inadmissible any alien who, by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, has sought to procure or has procured a visa, other documentation, admission, or any other immigration benefit. A student who has affirmatively misrepresented the nature of his or her employment, or who has knowingly participated in a scheme involving a sham employer, faces a lifetime inadmissibility bar that is exceedingly difficult to overcome. A discretionary waiver is available in narrow circumstances under INA § 212(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i), but only for those with a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent and only on a showing of extreme hardship.

Removal Proceedings

An F-1 student found to be out of status may be served with a Notice to Appear under INA § 239, 8 U.S.C. § 1229, and placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Common charges include INA § 237(a)(1)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i) (failure to maintain nonimmigrant status), and INA § 237(a)(1)(A) on the theory that the alien was inadmissible at entry or adjustment due to fraud or misrepresentation. Given the Department of Homeland Security’s recent guidance treating certain applicants for admission as subject to mandatory detention, F-1 students apprehended at the border or following an adverse OPT finding may face significant detention exposure as well.

Consular Revocation and Border Encounters

Consular officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers are increasingly attentive to OPT-related issues at ports of entry. A student returning from abroad whose former OPT employer has been flagged may face secondary inspection, electronic device searches, and, in some cases, revocation of the F-1 visa under 22 C.F.R. § 41.122. CBP may also issue a notice of expedited removal under INA § 235(b)(1) where it concludes that the student is inadmissible on misrepresentation grounds.

Criminal Exposure

Beyond the immigration consequences, false statements made in connection with OPT applications can support federal prosecution. The principal statutes implicated are 18 U.S.C. § 1546 (fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements to a federal agency), and 18 U.S.C. § 1015 (false statements relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry, including documents related to employment authorization). Acting Director Lyons stated that ICE will refer cases for prosecution where the evidence supports it.5

Collateral Consequences for Future Benefits

A fraud finding in the OPT context will materially impede future immigration filings. It may render the student ineligible for H-1B nonimmigrant classification, for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, and for naturalization. A pattern of association with a flagged employer can survive in the file for years and will likely surface in subsequent visa interviews, USCIS adjudications, and CBP encounters.

Consequences for Employers and DSOs

Employers identified through the current enforcement effort face a parallel set of risks. STEM OPT employers who sign Form I-983 attestations that they cannot back up at a site visit may be referred for civil and criminal investigation, may lose E-Verify enrollment, and may face Form I-9 enforcement under INA § 274A, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. Where the employer is also an H-1B petitioner, an adverse OPT finding may seed broader scrutiny of the company’s pending and approved H-1B petitions. Employers who knowingly file or facilitate false documents face potential prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1546.

DSOs at SEVP-certified schools occupy a more delicate position. The regulations require DSOs to maintain accurate SEVIS records and to make practical training recommendations only after a good-faith assessment that the employment is directly related to the student’s major area of study. Where a DSO recommends a student for OPT or for the 24-month STEM extension based on an employer that the DSO knew or should have known was a sham, the school’s SEVP certification itself can be placed at risk.

Historical Context and the Broader Policy Debate

The OPT program has long been a focal point of controversy. The original 12-month OPT period dates to the F-1 regulatory framework of the 1990s. In 2008, the George W. Bush administration created a 17-month STEM extension by interim final rule. In 2016, the Obama administration replaced that extension with the 24-month STEM extension at issue today, following the procedural defeat in Washington Alliance. Acting Director Lyons reported that the OPT-authorized population had reached 418,781 students by 2024.6

Critics of the program argue that DHS lacks statutory authority to confer post-graduation work authorization on F-1 students, on the ground that the F-1 classification at INA § 101(a)(15)(F)(i) is limited to those pursuing a full course of academic study. They contend that OPT functions as an off-budget guest-worker program that displaces U.S. graduates, particularly in technology fields, and that the FICA tax exemption for OPT students under 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b)(19) gives employers a financial incentive to prefer OPT workers over Americans. Proponents of OPT respond that international students contributed an estimated $43.8 billion to the United States economy in the 2023–2024 academic year and supported more than 375,000 jobs, that retention of foreign STEM graduates strengthens U.S. innovation, and that empirical studies have not borne out the displacement thesis.7

Whatever the merits of the policy debate, the current enforcement environment is unmistakable. ICE has signaled that the May 12 announcement is only the beginning of a sustained, multi-jurisdictional initiative. F-1 students, OPT employers, and SEVP-certified schools should expect more site visits, more unannounced inspections, and more SEVIS terminations in the coming months.

Practical Implications and Recommendations

For F-1 Students

Vet the prospective OPT employer thoroughly. Confirm that the employer maintains a real worksite, that it is in good standing in E-Verify (required for STEM OPT), and that it provides genuine supervision. Avoid any arrangement in which the student is asked to pay a “training fee” or any other payment to be listed as an employee. Avoid employers that have been the subject of prior enforcement actions or that are widely known to function as labor clearinghouses. Ensure that the work performed is directly related to the major area of study. Maintain a complete personal file: offer letter, Form I-983, pay stubs, supervisor contact information, performance reviews, and a contemporaneous log of duties. Report all material changes to the DSO within the regulatory 10-day window. Mind the unemployment caps of 90 days under regular OPT and 150 days under STEM OPT. And remember that volunteer positions not directly related to the course of study do not qualify as OPT employment. See our article on Volunteer Positions and OPT.

An F-1 student who receives any communication from ICE, USCIS, or the school suggesting a compliance problem should consult experienced immigration counsel immediately and before responding. The window for protective steps such as voluntary departure, applications for reinstatement, motions to reopen, or affirmative asylum filings, where applicable, can close quickly.

For OPT and STEM OPT Employers

Audit the company’s OPT roster against actual employment records. Verify that each student listed in SEVIS is in fact employed at the reported worksite, performing duties consistent with the Form I-983, and supervised by a qualified U.S.-based individual. Update the Form I-983 to reflect any material change. Train managers on what to expect during an unannounced ICE site visit and identify a designated point of contact who will greet ICE agents, accept service of any document, and coordinate the company’s response. Preserve documentation for at least three years after the completion of each student’s STEM OPT period. Respond promptly to any Notice of Intent to Deny, Notice of Intent to Revoke, or Notice of Intent to Terminate. The 30-day response window often controls whether an adverse decision can be averted.

For Designated School Officials

DSOs should approach OPT recommendations with heightened diligence. Where the proposed employer is unknown, lightly staffed, or shares an address with multiple unrelated entities, the DSO should make further inquiry before recommending OPT in SEVIS. Where a DSO learns after the fact that a student’s employer is implicated in fraud, the school should consider its own reporting and update obligations under 8 C.F.R. § 214.3(g).

Conclusion

The May 12, 2026 ICE announcement is a watershed moment for the OPT program. It places approximately 10,000 F-1 students under direct federal scrutiny and signals a much broader enforcement initiative to come. Some portion of the affected population will turn out, on closer examination, to be in full compliance: real students in real jobs whose employers happened to share office space with a flagged entity, or whose paperwork was mishandled by a third party. Others will face serious immigration and criminal consequences. The line between these two groups is documentation and diligence. F-1 students, employers, and educational institutions who can demonstrate genuine compliance with the regulatory architecture of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f) will be far better positioned than those who cannot.

Anyone who has been contacted by ICE, USCIS, or a U.S. consular post in connection with an OPT matter, or who has reason to believe that an OPT employer relationship may not withstand scrutiny, should consult an experienced immigration attorney promptly. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC, regularly represents international students, employers, and educational institutions in matters arising under the F-1 framework, including OPT compliance reviews, SEVIS reinstatement, consular response, removal defense, and federal court litigation.

  1. Press Conference, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Acting Director Todd M. Lyons on Optional Practical Training Fraud (May 12, 2026); Stephen Dinan, Wash. Times (May 12, 2026); Josh Christenson & Jennie Taer, Daily Wire (May 12, 2026).
  2. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, Bloomberg L. (May 12, 2026).
  3. Dinan, note 1.
  4. For prior enforcement involving flagged OPT-related entities and the consequences faced by associated F-1 students, Dyan Williams, The Legal Immigrant Podcast, Episode 11 (2021).
  5. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1015, 1546. The fraud or misuse of immigration documents under § 1546 carries a maximum sentence of ten years for a first offense, increased to fifteen years where the offense involves international terrorism or drug trafficking, and twenty-five years where the offense is committed to facilitate an act of terrorism.
  6. note 1.
  7. NAFSA: Ass’n of Int’l Educators; Cong. Research Serv., IF12631, (2024); Jeremy L. Neufeld, Niskanen Ctr. Res. Paper (Mar. 2019).