USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 1 of 73
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
`
`
`No. 21-5028
`
`In the
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the
`
`District of Columbia Circuit
`______________________________
`
`WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF TECHNOLOGY WORKERS,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`– v. –
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, et al.,
`Intervenors-Appellees.
`______________________________
`
`On appeal from a final judgment of the
`United States District Court for the District of Columbia
`No. 16-cv-01170
`Hon. Reggie B. Walton
`______________________________
`
`BRIEF FOR INTERVENORS-APPELLEES
`______________________________
`
`
`
`Paul W. Hughes
`Andrew A. Lyons-Berg
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`500 North Capitol Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 756-8000
`
`Counsel for Intervenors-Appellees
`(additional counsel listed on signature page)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 2 of 73
`
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED
`CASES
`
`A. Parties and Amici
`
`Except for the following, all parties, intervenors, and amici appear-
`
`ing before the district court and in this Court are listed in the Brief for
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant.
`
`New amici in this Court are: Landmark Legal Foundation, Louie
`
`Gohmert, Mo Brooks, Madison Cawthorn, Joe Kent, Programmers Guild,
`
`American Engineering Association, Inc., and U.S. Tech Workers.
`
`B. Rulings Under Review
`
`References to the rulings at issue appear in the Brief for Plaintiff-
`
`Appellant.
`
`C. Related Cases
`
`This case was previously before the Court in Washington Alliance
`
`of Technology Workers v. DHS, No. 17-5110. A previous case involving
`
`material identical regulations and arguments was before the Court in
`
`Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. DHS, No. 15-5239.
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul W. Hughes
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 3 of 73
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`The Intervenors-Appellees are the National Association of Manu-
`
`facturers, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
`
`and the Information Technology Industry Council.
`
`None of the Intervenors-Appellees has a parent company, and no
`
`publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in any of
`
`the Intervenors-Appellees. Each Intervenor-Appellee is a trade associa-
`
`tion for purposes of Circuit Rule 26.1(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul W. Hughes
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 4 of 73
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases ............................... i
`Corporate Disclosure Statement ................................................................ ii
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................... iv
`Glossary ..................................................................................................... xi
`Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
`Statutes and Regulations ........................................................................... 2
`Issue Presented for Review ........................................................................ 2
`Statement .................................................................................................... 2
`A. Statutory background. ....................................................................2
`B. The OPT Program. ...........................................................................3
`C. Procedural background. ..................................................................9
`Summary of the Argument ...................................................................... 12
`Argument .................................................................................................. 14
` The OPT program is a lawful exercise of DHS authority. ........... 14
`A. The F-1 nonimmigrant definition does not preclude DHS
`from authorizing post-completion practical training. ............ 15
`1. Washtech’s argument fails as a textual matter. .............. 15
`2. The Executive has interpreted the INA to allow
`post-completion practical training for more than
`seventy years. ...................................................................... 24
`B. DHS has ample authority generally to authorize
`noncitizen employment. ............................................................... 41
`C. The OPT program is eminently reasonable. ............................ 52
`Conclusion ................................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 5 of 73
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES†
`
`Cases
`Matter of Alberga,
`10 I. & N. Dec. 764 (B.I.A. 1964) ......................................................... 29
`*Altman v. SEC,
`666 F.3d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ................................................ 24, 47, 48
`Anwo v. INS,
`607 F.2d 435 (D.C. Cir. 1979) .............................................................. 22
`Ariz. DREAM Act Coal. v. Brewer,
`757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 51
`Bolden v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Assoc.,
`848 F.2d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1988) .............................................................. 35
`Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) .................................................................. 12, 14, 19
`Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) v. Kerrigan,
`865 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1989) .................................................. 19, 20, 57
`Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor,
`478 U.S. 833 (1986) ...................................................... 24, 35, 47, 48, 51
`Doe, 1 v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
`920 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ............................................ 13, 19, 20, 52
`Elkins v. Moreno,
`435 U.S. 647 (1978) ........................................................................ 22, 23
`Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X LLC,
`150 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) .......................................................... 35
`Good Fortune Shipping SA v. Commissioner,
`897 F.3d 256 (D.C. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 19
`Matter of Gutierrez,
`15 I. & N. Dec. 727 (B.I.A. 1976) ......................................................... 30
`Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB,
`535 U.S. 137 (2002) .............................................................................. 42
`Jenkins v. Haubert,
`179 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1999) ................................................................... 44
`
`
`† Authorities on which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 6 of 73
`
`
`
`Cases—continued
`Kaseman v. District of Columbia,
`444 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2006) .............................................................. 18
`Keating v. FERC,
`569 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 19
`Keepseagle v. Perdue,
`856 F.3d 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ............................................................ 53
`Kisor v. Wilkie,
`139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) .......................................................................... 14
`Lederman v. United States,
`89 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2000) .......................................................... 20
`Lorillard v. Pons,
`434 U.S. 575 (1978) .............................................................................. 27
`Matter of Lieu,
`15 I. & N. Dec. 786 (Acting Dist. Dir., INS 1976) .............................. 45
`Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran,
`456 U.S. 353 (1982) .............................................................................. 27
`Mourning v. Family Publ’ns Serv., Inc.,
`411 U.S. 356 (1973) .............................................................................. 13
`Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense,
`138 S. Ct. 617 (2018) ............................................................................ 44
`Nat’l Black Police Ass’n v. District of Columbia,
`108 F.3d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1997) .............................................................. 10
`New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd. v.
`Presbyterian Healthcare Servs.,
`994 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2021) ............................................................ 58
`Owens v. Republic of Sudan,
`864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 28
`Pharm. Res. & Mfrs. of Am. v. FTC,
`790 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 19
`Prairie Rivers Network v. Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC,
`976 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2020) ................................................................ 58
`Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
`332 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ........................................................ 32, 35
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 7 of 73
`
`
`
`Cases—continued
`Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC,
`395 U.S. 367 (1969) .............................................................................. 48
`Save Jobs USA v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
`942 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ................................................................ 1
`Silbert-Dean v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.,
`721 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 58
`Matter of T-,
`7 I. & N. Dec. 682 (B.I.A. 1958) ........................................................... 45
`Tanzin v. Tanvir,
`141 S. Ct. 486 (2020) ............................................................................ 42
`Texas v. United States,
`809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 42
`United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,
`340 U.S. 36 (1950) ................................................................................ 10
`Validus Reinsurance, Ltd. v. United States,
`786 F.3d 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ............................................................ 18
`Matter of Wang,
`11 I. & N. Dec. 282 (B.I.A. 1965) ......................................................... 30
`*Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. DHS,
`156 F. Supp. 3d 123 (D.D.C. 2015) .... 4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 23, 31, 32, 33, 35
`Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. DHS,
`249 F. Supp. 3d 524 (D.D.C. 2017) ...................................................... 10
`Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. DHS,
`395 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019) .......................................................... 11
`Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. DHS,
`650 F. App’x 13 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ......................................................... 10
`Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. DHS,
`892 F.3d 332 (D.C. Cir. 2018) .................................................... 3, 10, 11
`Matter of Yang,
`15 I. & N. Dec. 147 (B.I.A. 1974) ......................................................... 30
`Matter of Yau,
`13 I. & N. Dec. 75 (B.I.A. 1968) ............................................... 30, 37, 38
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 8 of 73
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`6 U.S.C.
`§ 202 ....................................................................................................... 3
`§ 557 ....................................................................................................... 3
`8 U.S.C.
`§ 1101(a)(15) ........................................................................................... 2
`§ 1101(a)(15)(F) .............................................................................. 15, 16
`§ 1101(a)(15)(F)(i) .......................................................... 2, 12, 16, 23, 36
`§ 1103.................................................................................................... 52
`§ 1103(a) ............................................................................................... 46
`§ 1103(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 16
`§ 1103(a)(3) ..................................................................................... 16, 44
`§ 1184(a)(1) ................................................... 3, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 44
`§ 1324a.......................................................................... 48, 49, 50, 51, 52
`§ 1324a(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 3
`§ 1324a(a)(1)(A) .................................................................................... 42
`§ 1324a(h)(3) ................................................................... 3, 13, 43, 47, 50
`Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002,
`Pub. L. No. 107-173, 116 Stat. 543 (2002) .......................................... 31
`Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
`Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996).............. 31, 51
`Immigration Act of 1924,
`Pub. L. No. 68-139, 43 Stat. 153 ............................................. 25, 27, 28
`Immigration Act of 1990 .......................................................................... 31
`Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No. 82-414,
`66 Stat. 163 (1952) ................ 2, 3, 4, 16, 24, 26-28, 33-36, 41, 43-47, 58
`Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986 .................................. 42, 43
`Pub. L. No. 87-256, 75 Stat. 527 (1961) ................................................... 31
`Pub. L. No. 100-525, 102 Stat. 2609 (1988) ............................................. 51
`Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (1990) ............................................. 51
`Pub. L. No. 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733 (1991) ............................................. 51
`Pub. L. No. 103-416, 108 Stat. 4305 (1994) ............................................. 51
`Pub. L. No. 108-390, 118 Stat. 2242 (2004) ............................................. 51
`Pub. L. No. 111-306, 124 Stat. 3280 (2010) ............................................. 31
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 9 of 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regulations
`8 C.F.R.
`§ 109.1(b) .............................................................................................. 47
`§ 214.2................................................................................................... 16
`§ 214.2(c) (1957) ................................................................................... 45
`§ 214.2(f)(5)(i) ......................................................................................... 8
`§ 214.2(f)(5)(iii) ..................................................................................... 18
`§ 214.2(f)(5)(iv) ..................................................................................... 17
`§ 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(A) ................................................................................. 7
`§ 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C) ............................................................................. 7, 8
`§ 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(D) ................................................................................. 8
`§ 214.2(f)(10), (f)(10)(ii)(A)(3) ................................................................. 7
`§ 274a.12......................................................................................... 47, 50
`§ 274a.12(c)(3) ........................................................................................ 7
`
`Employment Authorization,
`51 Fed. Reg. 39,385 (Oct. 28, 1986) ............................................... 45, 48
`Employment Authorization; Classes of Aliens Eligible,
`52 Fed. Reg. 46,092 (Dec. 4, 1987) ...................................................... 49
`Employment Authorization to Aliens in the United States,
`46 Fed. Reg. 25,079 (May 5, 1981) ...................................................... 47
`Extending Period of Optional Practical Training by 17 Months for
` F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and Expanding
`Cap-Gap Relief for All F-1 Students With Pending H-1B Petitions,
`73 Fed. Reg. 18,944 (April 8, 2008) ........................................... 6, 29, 50
`Improving and Expanding Training Opportunities for F-1
`Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and
`Cap-Gap Relief for All Eligible F-1 Students,
`81 Fed. Reg. 13,040 (Mar. 11, 2016) ...... 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 29, 41, 55-57
`Nonimmigrant Classes; Change of Nonimmigrant Classification;
`Revisions in Regulations Pertaining to Nonimmigrant Students
`and the Schools Approved for Their Attendance,
`48 Fed. Reg. 14,575 (Apr. 5, 1983) ............. 5, 6, 7, 18, 29, 40, 45, 55-57
`Pre-Completion Interval Training; F-1 Student Work
`Authorization, 57 Fed. Reg. 31,954 (July 20, 1992) ................. 5, 29, 50
`Proposed Rules for Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens,
`44 Fed. Reg. 43,480 (July 25, 1979) .............................................. 45, 46
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 10 of 73
`
`
`
`Regulations—continued
`Retention and Reporting of Information for F, J, and M
`Nonimmigrants; Student and Exchange Visitor Information
`System (SEVIS), 67 Fed. Reg. 76,256 (Dec. 11, 2002) .................. 29, 50
`Special Requirements for Admission, Extension, and
`Maintenance of Status, 38 Fed. Reg. 35,425 (Dec. 28, 1973) ......... 4, 28
`12 Fed. Reg. 5,355 (Aug. 7, 1947) .................................................. 4, 25, 45
`18 Fed. Reg. 3,526 (June 19, 1953) ...................................................... 4, 28
`38 Fed. Reg. 35,425 (Dec. 28, 1973) ......................................................... 45
`43 Fed. Reg. 33,229 (July 31, 1978) ......................................................... 45
`51 Fed. Reg. 39,385 (Oct. 28, 1986) ......................................................... 45
`52 Fed. Reg. 8,762 (Mar. 19, 1987) .......................................................... 45
`52 Fed. Reg. 16,216 (May 1, 1987) ........................................................... 49
`53 Fed. Reg. 46,850 (Nov. 21, 1988) ........................................................ 49
`55 Fed. Reg. 25,928 (June 25, 1990) ........................................................ 49
`56 Fed. Reg. 55,608 (Oct. 29, 1991) ......................................................... 50
`60 Fed. Reg. 44,260 (Aug. 25, 1995) ........................................................ 50
`60 Fed. Reg. 66,062 (Dec. 21, 1995) ......................................................... 50
`63 Fed. Reg. 27,823 (May 21, 1998) ......................................................... 50
`64 Fed. Reg. 25,756 (May 12, 1999) ......................................................... 50
`67 Fed. Reg. 4,784 (Jan. 31, 2002) ........................................................... 50
`69 Fed. Reg. 45,555 (July 30, 2004) ......................................................... 50
`74 Fed. Reg. 26,514 (June 3, 2009) .......................................................... 50
`74 Fed. Reg. 46,938 (Sept. 14, 2009)........................................................ 50
`75 Fed. Reg. 47,699 (Aug. 9, 2010) .......................................................... 50
`75 Fed. Reg. 79,264 (Dec. 20, 2010) ......................................................... 50
`79 Fed. Reg. 26,886 (May 12, 2014) ......................................................... 50
`80 Fed. Reg. 10,284 (Feb. 25, 2015) ......................................................... 50
`80 Fed. Reg. 63,376 (Oct. 19, 2015) ......................................................... 50
`
`Other Authorities
`Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law (2012) ..................... 43
`1 Charles Gordon et al., Immigration Law & Procedure (2019) ...... 26, 51
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 11 of 73
`
`
`
`Other Authorities—continued
`Condition, Merriam-Webster Dictionary ................................................ 44
`David J. Bier, The Facts about Optional Practical Training (OPT)
`for Foreign Students (May 20, 2020) ................................................... 17
`Fed. R. Evid. 201, advisory committee note ............................................ 58
`H.R. Rep. 82-1365 (1952) ......................................................................... 39
`H.R. Rep. 97-264 (1981) ........................................................................... 40
`Illegal Aliens: Hearings Before Subcomm. No. 1 of the Comm.
`on the Judiciary, Pt. 1, 92d Cong. (1971) ............................................ 34
`Immigration Reform: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Immigration
`and Refugee Affairs of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary on S. 358
`and S. 448, 101st Cong. (1989) ............................................................ 34
`Immigration Policy: An Overview: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
`Immigration of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary,
`107th Cong. (2001) ............................................................................... 34
`INS Operating Instructions
`214.1 (Jan. 26, 1966) ............................................................................ 45
` 214.2(a) (June 15, 1963) ...................................................................... 45
`214.2(e) (Feb. 28, 1968) ........................................................................ 45
` 214.2(e) (Nov. 10, 1971) ....................................................................... 45
`214.2(f) (Jan. 15, 1962) ........................................................................ 45
`214.2(j)(1) (Nov. 15, 1963) ................................................................... 45
`214.2(j)(5) (Apr. 14, 1965) .................................................................... 45
`214.2(j)(5) (Jan. 17, 1973) .................................................................... 45
` 214.2(j)(5) (July 5, 1978) ...................................................................... 45
`48 Interpreter Releases (1971) ................................................................ 45
`55 Interpreter Releases (1978) ................................................................ 46
`Review of Immigration Problems: Hearings Before the Subcomm.
`on Immigration, Citizenship, and Int’l Law of the H. Comm. on
`the Judiciary, 94th Cong. (1975) ...................................... 30, 33, 38, 39
`S. Rep. No. 81-1515 (1950) ..................................... 4, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 40
`S. Rep. No. 96-859 (1980) ......................................................................... 39
`Sam Bensen, Assistant Commissioner, Adjudications, Immigration
`and Naturalization Service, Lawful Work for Nonimmigrants ......... 45
`2B Sutherland Statutes & Statutory Construction (7th ed.) .................. 51
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 12 of 73
`
`
`APA
`
`DHS
`
`INA
`
`INS
`
`OPT
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`Administrative Procedure Act
`
`Department of Homeland Security
`
`Immigration and Nationality Act
`
`Immigration and Naturalization Service
`
`Optional Practical Training
`
`STEM
`
`Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
`
`Washtech
`
`Washington Alliance of Technology Workers
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 13 of 73
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The optional practical training (OPT) program authorizes certain
`
`international students, who have entered the United States on F-1 stu-
`
`dent visas, to complete their education with term-limited employment
`
`opportunities directly related to their fields of study. Practical training
`
`programs like OPT have existed at least since 1947, and these pro-
`
`grams—along with the regulations authorizing them—have been main-
`
`tained through every upheaval in the immigration laws in the interven-
`
`ing decades. Today, hundreds of thousands of foreign students partici-
`
`pate in optional practical training, and it forms a cornerstone of the in-
`
`ternational student experience in America. For nearly seventy-five years,
`
`OPT has rested on sound legal footing.
`
`With this lawsuit, Washtech seeks to change all that, maintaining
`
`that every presidential administration since Harry Truman’s has acted
`
`lawlessly in approving practical training. Not only that, but if Washtech’s
`
`broad claims were to succeed, scores of other immigration programs—
`
`including, for example, work authorization for H-4 spouses (see, e.g., Save
`
`Jobs USA v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 942 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2019))—
`
`would crumble too. But Washtech’s legal arguments lack substance: The
`
`Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ample statutory authority
`
`to permit post-completion practical training for foreign students, and it
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 14 of 73
`
`
`has exercised that authority reasonably here. The district court correctly
`
`entered summary judgment for the government and Intervenors.
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`All applicable statutes are contained in the Brief for Appellant.
`
`ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
`
`May DHS authorize foreign students in F-1 status to engage in
`
`term-limited practical training after the completion of their studies,
`
`through temporary employment in a field related to their coursework, as
`
`has been permitted since 1947?
`
`STATEMENT
`
`A. Statutory background.
`
`The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) creates several classes
`
`of nonimmigrants, noncitizens permitted to enter the United States tem-
`
`porarily and for a specific purpose. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15). The op-
`
`tional practical training (OPT) program at issue in this case is available
`
`to students in F-1 status, which may be obtained by
`
`an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has
`no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student quali-
`fied to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the
`United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pur-
`suing such a course of study . . . at an established . . . academic
`institution[.]
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i).
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 15 of 73
`
`
`The INA further provides that “[t]he admission to the United States
`
`of any alien as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under such
`
`conditions as the [Secretary of Homeland Security] may by regulations
`
`prescribe.” 8 U.S.C. § 1184(a)(1).1
`
`Finally, federal law identifies which noncitizens in the United
`
`States are authorized to work. It is unlawful for an employer to hire an
`
`“unauthorized alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1). And the statute defines an
`
`“unauthorized alien” as one who is neither “lawfully admitted for perma-
`
`nent residence” nor “authorized to be so employed by this chapter or by
`
`the [Secretary of Homeland Security].” Id. § 1324a(h)(3).
`
`B. The OPT Program.
`
`Though the details have varied over the years, executive-branch
`
`programs permitting international students to accept education-related
`
`employment in the United States have existed for the better part of the
`
`last century. As a district court observed in 2015, “[f]or almost 70 years,
`
`DHS and its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
`
`
`1 The statute refers to the Attorney General, rather than the Secretary
`of Homeland Security; with the transfer of immigration authority to the
`Department of Homeland Security in 2003, that statutory reference is
`now “deemed to refer to the Secretary.” 6 U.S.C. §§ 557, 202; see Wash.
`All. of Tech. Workers v. DHS, 892 F.3d 332, 337 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 16 of 73
`
`
`(‘INS’), have interpreted the immigration laws to allow students to en-
`
`gage in employment for practical training purposes.” Wash. All. of Tech.
`
`Workers v. DHS, 156 F. Supp. 3d 123, 129 (D.D.C. 2015) (Washtech II); see
`
`infra pages 24-41.
`
`That history dates back at least to 1947, before the enactment of
`
`the INA and the current statute authorizing the F-1 student visa. At that
`
`time, INS promulgated a regulation permitting “employment for practi-
`
`cal training” if recommended by a foreign student’s school. 12 Fed. Reg.
`
`5,355, 5,357 (Aug. 7, 1947). In practice, this regulation allowed post-com-
`
`pletion practical training, just like the OPT program. See S. Rep. No. 81-
`
`1515, at 503 (1950) (“[S]ince the issuance of the revised regulations in
`
`August 1947 . . . practical training has been authorized for 6 months after
`
`completion of the student’s regular course of study.”) (emphasis added).
`
`After the INA was enacted in 1952, requiring a new set of immigration
`
`regulations, the government issued a new practical training rule with
`
`nearly identical language. See 18 Fed. Reg. 3,526, 3,529 (June 19, 1953).
`
`Additional regulations followed, all based on the conclusion that the
`
`immigration agency may authorize practical training opportunities for
`
`international students. See, e.g., Special Requirements for Admission, Ex-
`
`tension, and Maintenance of Status, 38 Fed. Reg. 35,425, 35,426 (Dec. 28,
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 17 of 73
`
`
`1973) (“If a student requests permission to accept or continue employ-
`
`ment in order to obtain practical training, an authorized school official
`
`must certify that the employment is recommended for that purpose and
`
`will provide the student with practical training in his field of study[.]”);
`
`Nonimmigrant Classes; Change of Nonimmigrant Classification; Revi-
`
`sions in Regulations Pertaining to Nonimmigrant Students and the
`
`Schools Approved for Their Attendance, 48 Fed. Reg. 14,575, 14,586 (Apr.
`
`5, 1983) (allowing “[t]emporary employment for practical training,” in-
`
`cluding “[a]fter completion of the course of study”).
`
`The current manifestation of this longstanding principle, optional
`
`practical training, was established by regulation in 1992, during the
`
`George H.W. Bush administration. See Pre-Completion Interval Train-
`
`ing; F-1 Student Work Authorization, 57 Fed. Reg. 31,954 (July 20, 1992)
`
`(1992 Rule). Optional practical training “is a form of temporary employ-
`
`ment available to F-1 students . . . that directly relates to a student’s ma-
`
`jor area of study in the United States.” JA 42 (Improving and Expanding
`
`Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM De-
`
`grees and Cap-Gap Relief for All Eligible F-1 Students, 81 Fed. Reg. 13,040,
`
`13,040 (Mar. 11, 2016) (2016 Rule)).
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 18 of 73
`
`
`In 2008, during the George W. Bush administration, the Depart-
`
`ment of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated a regulation that pro-
`
`vided for an OPT extension of up to 17 months for students holding a
`
`STEM degree—that is, a degree in science, technology, engineering, or
`
`mathematics. See Extending Period of Optional Practical Training by 17
`
`Months for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and Ex-
`
`panding Cap-Gap Relief for All F-1 Students With Pending H-1B Peti-
`
`tions, 73 Fed. Reg. 18,944 (April 8, 2008) (2008 Rule). Subsequently, dur-
`
`ing the Obama administration, DHS expanded the STEM OPT extension
`
`to a maximum period of 24 months. See JA 42-123 (2016 Rule, 81 Fed.
`
`Reg. 13,040).
`
`The OPT program is premised on the widespread understanding
`
`that “practical training is an accepted and important part of interna-
`
`tional post-secondary education,” and “such work-based learning is a con-
`
`tinuation of the student’s program of study.” JA 52-53 (81 Fed. Reg. at
`
`13,050-13,051)). In the 2016 Rule, DHS explained:
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1902173 Filed: 06/11/2021 Page 19 of 73
`
`
`[T]he OPT program enriches and augments a student’s edu-
`cational experience by providing the ability for students to ap-
`ply in professional settings the theoretical principles they
`learned in academic settings. By promoting the ability of stu-
`dents to experience first-hand the connection bet