Office of Immigration Statistics

POLICY DIRECTORATE

Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of 

the Resident Nonimmigrant Population 

in the United States: January 2012

BRYAN BAKER

INTRODUCTION

This report presents estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident nonimmigrant 

population in the United States. The estimates are daily averages for the 12-month period centered 

on January 1, 2012. In this report, the term resident nonimmigrant refers to foreign nationals who 

are legally admitted into the United States for specific, temporary purposes and whose classes 

of admission are associated with residency (e.g., students and temporary workers, as opposed to 

tourists and business travelers). The characteristics analyzed include category of admission, country 

of citizenship, age, sex, and destination state. The estimates are derived from U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) administrative records of nonimmigrant arrivals and departures. 

The resident nonimmigrant population averaged 1.9 

million during July 1, 2011–June 30, 2012. Temporary 

workers and their families accounted for approximately 

45 percent of the population, and students and their 

families accounted for another 40 percent. Nearly half 

of the resident nonimmigrants were citizens of Asian 

countries. Eighty percent of resident nonimmigrants 

were ages 18 through 44.1

1 Hereafter, each category of admission will include both principal nonimmigrants 

and dependent (non-principal) family members unless otherwise noted.

DATA AND METHOD

Overview

The population size was estimated in three steps using 

arrival and departure data from nonimmigrant visits. In 

the first step, visit-length frequency tables were tabulated from nonimmigrant visit records that had been 

reconstructed by matching arrival records with departure records. In the second step, expected days of 

residence in the United States were calculated for each 

visit using the arrival date on the arrival record and the 

visit-length distributions calculated in the first step. 

Only days of residence that would have occurred during 

the 12-month period were counted. In the third step, 

the average daily expected population size was calculated by adding the expected days of residence together 

across all visits from the second step and then dividing 

the total by the number of days in the year.2

Arrival and departure records were used because there 

are no national census or survey data that identify nonimmigrants separately from other foreign-born persons. 

The population was estimated, as opposed to measured, 

because departure records were not available for all visits. 

For example, some visits were ongoing, while others 

ended without generating a departure record. Presence in 

(or absence from) the United States could not be determined without a departure record. The data and methods 

are described in further detail in the following sections.

2 The method could also be used to estimate the population size on January 1, but 

because of seasonal fluctuation, the average population size over the course of 

the year is a more meaningful measure.

Data

Nonimmigrant arrival and departure data were obtained 

from DHS Form I-94 Nonimmigrant Arrival/Departure Record and 

provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

Information collected on Form I-94 includes arrival 

date, departure date, port of entry, class of admission, 

country of citizenship, state of destination, age, and sex. 

Data were available for arrivals from October 1, 2000 

through June 30, 2012 and for departures from October 

1, 2004 through June 30, 2012. 
2

The arrival and departure sections of form I-94 are submitted separately and come preprinted with identical tracking numbers.3

During the admission process, a CBP officer either collects the 

arrival section of the I-94 or updates a preexisting, electronic I-94 

record to reflect a repeat arrival during the previously authorized 

admission period. The departure data, on the other hand, are less 

reliably collected and may be absent for a variety of reasons. For 

example, some visits might not have ended by the date the data 

are compiled, the nonimmigrant might adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, or the nonimmigrant might depart 

without submitting the departure section of the I-94. Based on 

historical trends, departure records are eventually collected for 

75–80 percent of all resident nonimmigrant visits, but fewer than 

50 percent are collected in the same year as the arrival.

Whenever possible, the arrival and departure sections were matched 

together to reconstruct the visit history. An arrival record was considered to be a match with a departure record if the preprinted 

tracking number, first initial of last name, and date of birth were 

identical on both sections. About 97 percent of departure records 

are successfully matched to a prior arrival record each year.

Analysis was restricted to resident nonimmigrant classes of admission, i.e., classes characterized by visits lasting 2 months or longer 

on average.4 The 2-month duration was chosen in order to be consistent with the residence definitions used in the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s American Community Survey and DHS estimates of the 

size and characteristics of the unauthorized immigrant population 

(Hoefer et al, 2012). Because admission under a residence class 

does not always indicate residence in the United States, data were 

further restricted by omitting records clearly exhibiting commuter 

behavior (i.e., 7 or more visits in the same year).

3 The paper-based Form I-94 was replaced with electronic data collection in May of 2013.

4 See Appendix I for a list of resident nonimmigrant classes of admission.

Method

The population size was estimated by taking the average of the 

expected number of days of presence during the 12-month period, 

July 1, 2011–June 30, 2012. The expected days of presence were calculated for each visit using the actual arrival date and the visit-length 

distribution estimated for the given class of admission and country 

of citizenship. Only days of presence that would have occurred during the 12-month period were counted toward the total.

Step 1—Reconstruct Visit Records and Estimate Visit-length Distributions. Visit 

records were reconstructed by matching arrival records with 

departure records. An arrival record was considered to be a match 

with a departure record if the preprinted tracking number, first 

initial of last name, and date of birth were identical on both 

records. Visit length, or the number of days between arrival and 

departure, was calculated from the arrival and departure dates for 

each of the reconstructed visit records. 

Next, visit-length frequency tables for each class of admission and 

country of citizenship were tabulated from the reconstructed visit 

records. Only visits with a departure during the 12-month period 

were included in the tabulations. The frequency tables were then 

converted into probability distributions by dividing each visitlength frequency by the total number of visits.

The visits used for the frequency tables were limited to those with 

departures during the 12-month period in order to avoid selection 

bias. Without such a restriction, longer visits would be disproportionately excluded because they are less likely to have ended by the 

date on which the data were compiled. The resulting visit-length 

distributions were assumed to be representative of all visits, but 

were not representative of either the matched or unmatched visits 

alone. As a result, days of presence had to be estimated for all 

arrivals, not just those without matching departure records.

Step 2—Calculate the Expected Number of Days of Presence during the 12-month 

Period for Each Visit. In the second step, the expected number of days 

of presence in the United States during the 12-month period is 

calculated for each visit by applying the visit-length distribution 

(estimated in Step 1 for each class of admission and country of 

citizenship) to the actual arrival date on the arrival section of the 

I-94. The calculation is performed by taking the sum across all 

possible visit lengths (D = 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, ..., max) of the 

product of the number of days that would have occurred during 

the 12-month period if the visit lasted D days and the probability 

that the visit lasted D days.

Step 3—Calculate Total and Convert to Daily Average. The estimated population size is the daily average of the expected number of days of 

presence over the course of the year and is calculated by taking the 

sum of all of the expected days of presence from Step 2 (overall or 

within a specific group) and dividing the total by the number of 

days in the year.

LIMITATIONS

The accuracy and precision of the population estimates depend on 

how well the reconstructed visits with a departure during the 

12-month period represent all visits within each class of admission and country of citizenship. Some of the more apparent or 

important limitations are discussed below. 

Adjustment to LPR status

Limited departure data are available for nonimmigrants who adjust 

LPR status. The impact on estimated visit-length and nonimmigrant population size is expected to be small, in general, because 

relatively few visits result in adjustment to LPR status. For example, 

fewer than 250,000 resident nonimmigrants adjusted to LPR status in fiscal year 2010, despite more than 5.4 million resident 

nonimmigrant admissions. The impact may be greater among 

classes and countries with higher adjustment rates. For example, 

the number of adjustments per admission in FY 2010 was 1 in 5 

for H4 dependents, 1 in 9 for H-1B workers, and only 1 in 60 for 

seasonal workers. Results are presented only for broad categories 

of classes because of the clustering of adjustments of status.

Effect of visit length on probability of Form I-94 loss 

or damage

If the probability that a nonimmigrant will lose the departure stub 

prior to departure increases with visit length, then longer visits may 

be underrepresented in the observed visit-length probability distributions, and the population size may be underestimated as a result. 
Choice of classification variables

Visit length is known to vary with class of admission and country 

of citizenship, but may also change with additional classification 

variables within some subgroups. For example, student visits that 

begin with the start of the fall semester may be more likely to end 

after 9 months than student visits that start in January. Similarly, 

Canadian workers in Texas may tend to take fewer trips home than 

Canadian workers in Michigan. Restricting the method to the two 

primary classification variables limited complexity and ensured 

that many data points were available at most levels, but did so at 

the possible expense of a more robust model.

Increasing arrival volume

The observed visit-length distributions are based on completed 

visits with an arrival between Oct. 1, 2000 and June 30, 2012 and 

a departure recorded between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012. 

Because arrival flow tends to increase slightly each year, departures 

in the most recent year disproportionately reflect more recent 

arrivals. Therefore the visit-length distributions, and the resulting 

population estimates, are likely to be slightly biased downwards.

Stability of visit length across time

The estimation methodology implicitly assumes that the visit 

length distribution is constant across time. This assumption is supported by data showing little variation in average visit lengths and 

distributions of arrival dates from 2007 through 2010. 

RESULTS

Overview

There were, on average, 1.9 million nonimmigrants residing in 

the United States during the 12-month period centered on January 

1, 2012 (see Table 1). The largest categories were temporary workers5

 (45 percent, or 840,000) and students (38 percent, or 

720,000). Among temporary workers, 38 percent were citizens of 

India and 45 percent were ages 25–34. Nearly 50 percent of the 

students were citizens of China (22 percent), India (14 percent), 

or South Korea (13 percent), and slightly more than 50 percent of 

the students were ages 18–24. Exchange visitors made up another 

12 percent of the total resident nonimmigrant population, and the 

remaining 4 percent were diplomats and other representatives. 

Estimates for students and exchange visitor principals are consistent6

 with counts of “active” students from the DHS Student and 

Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) (see Appendix II).

Table 1. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population by Category of Admission and Country of Citizenship: January 2012

Region and country 

of citizenship

Total 

 Percent of Total by Category of Admission 

Temporary workers Students Exchange visitors

Diplomats and other 

representatives

Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

REGION

Total ................. 1,870,000 840,000 45 720,000 38 230,000 12 80,000 4

Asia ................... 980,000 460,000 46 430,000 43 80,000 8 20,000 2

Europe ................. 250,000 120,000 46 50,000 20 70,000 26 20,000 8

North America ............ 240,000 170,000 68 50,000 22 20,000 7 10,000 3

South America ............ 90,000 30,000 38 30,000 32 20,000 21 10,000 9

All others including unknown .. 300,000 70,000 24 160,000 53 50,000 17 20,000 6

COUNTRY

Total ................. 1,870,000 840,000 45 720,000 38 230,000 12 80,000 4

India ................... 430,000 320,000 74 100,000 23 10,000 2 — —

China .................. 210,000 30,000 12 150,000 73 30,000 13 — —

Korea, South ............. 140,000 30,000 20 100,000 67 20,000 12 — —

Canada ................. 110,000 80,000 67 30,000 24 10,000 6 — —

Mexico ................. 100,000 70,000 78 10,000 14 10,000 6 — —

Japan .................. 90,000 50,000 58 20,000 28 10,000 11 — —

United Kingdom ........... 50,000 30,000 65 10,000 15 10,000 13 — —

Saudi Arabia ............. 50,000 — — 40,000 91 — — — —

Germany ................ 40,000 20,000 41 10,000 15 20,000 35 — —

France .................. 40,000 20,000 48 10,000 18 10,000 26 — —

All others including unknown .. 610,000 200,000 33 240,000 39 120,000 20 50,000 8

— Base number or percent rounds to zero.

Notes: All class categories include both principals and dependents. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

5 Each category of admission includes both principal nonimmigrants and dependent (non-principal) 

family members.

6 “Active” students are assumed to reside in the United States for three-quarters of the calendar 

year, on average.

Region and country of citizenship

About half of the resident nonimmigrants (980,000) were citizens of Asian countries, including India (23 percent), China (11 

percent), South Korea (8 percent), and Japan (5 percent). Europe 

and North America comprised another 26 percent, led by Canada 

(6 percent) and Mexico (5 percent). The five leading countries 

accounted for over 50 percent of the total.

3
Temporary workers made up much larger portions of the nonimmigrant populations from Mexico (78 percent), India (74 percent), 

Canada (67 percent), and the United Kingdom (65 percent) than 

from all countries combined (45 percent). Nonimmigrants from 

Saudi Arabia, China, and Korea were more likely to be in the United 

States on student visas. More than 90 percent of resident nonimmigrants with Saudi Arabian citizenship were students, as were 73 

percent of Chinese and 67 percent of South Koreans. In comparison, 

only 38 percent of resident nonimmigrant citizens of all countries 

were students. Among the top 10 leading countries of citizenship, 

Germany and France led the exchange visitor category, making up 

more than 60 percent of the total.

State of destination

California was the leading destination state, with 270,000 (15 

percent) of the total 1.9 million nonimmigrants choosing to 

reside in that state (see Table 2). The next leading destination states 

were New York (210,000), Texas (140,000), Florida (100,000), 

and Massachusetts (90,000). The top 5 destination states 

accounted for 44 percent of the total, and the top 10 accounted 

for more than 60 percent. Compared to the nation as a whole, disproportionately large percentages of the temporary worker 

population resided in Texas, New Jersey, and Washington and substantially larger than average percentages of the student population 

resided in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

Table 2. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population by Category of Admission and State of Destination: January 2012

State of destination

Total Temporary workers Students Exchange visitors

Diplomats and

other representatives

Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total 1,870,000 840,000 45 720,000 38 230,000 12 80,000 4

California ............... 270,000 130,000 47 110,000 42 30,000 10 — —

New York ............... 210,000 90,000 42 80,000 38 30,000 12 20,000 8

Texas ................. 140,000 80,000 60 40,000 31 10,000 7 — —

Florida ................. 100,000 50,000 52 30,000 35 10,000 10 — —

Massachusetts .......... 90,000 30,000 29 50,000 52 20,000 18 — —

New Jersey ............. 90,000 60,000 68 20,000 21 10,000 9 — —

Illinois ................. 70,000 40,000 48 30,000 39 10,000 11 — —

Pennsylvania ............ 60,000 20,000 36 30,000 48 10,000 15 — —

Virginia ................ 60,000 20,000 37 20,000 32 10,000 13 10,000 18

Washington ............. 50,000 30,000 55 20,000 36 — — — —

All others including unknown .. 720,000 290,000 41 280,000 39 100,000 15 40,000 5

— Base number or percent rounds to zero.

Notes: All class categories include both principals and dependents. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Age and sex

About 720,000 resident nonimmigrants (38 percent of the total 

1.9 million) were under the age of 25, another 710,000 (38 percent) were 25–34, and 440,000 (23 percent) were 35 or older 

(see Table 3). The age distributions for males and females resembled the overall age distribution, though males tended to be 

slightly older than females (27 percent of males were 35 or older, 

as compared to 19 percent of females). 

About three-quarters of the males and two-thirds of the females 

between the ages of 35 and 54 were temporary workers, as compared to 45 percent across all age groups. In fact, the only age group 

with a smaller than average percentage of temporary workers was 

the 18–24 group, which was largely composed of students (73 percent). Students and exchange visitors tended to be 18–34 (85 and 

70 percent of the category totals, respectively), and temporary 

workers tended to be 25–44 (70 percent of all temporary workers).

Slightly more than half of the resident nonimmigrant population 

was male (55 percent). Temporary workers and diplomats were 

disproportionately likely to be male (59 and 60 percent, respectively), 53 percent of students were male, and slightly fewer than 

half of exchange visitors were male (46 percent).

4
5

Table 3. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population by Category of Admission and Age and Sex: January 2012

Characteristic

Total Temporary workers Students Exchange visitors

Diplomats and

other representatives

Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

AGE GROUP

Total ................ 1,870,000 840,000 45 720,000 38 230,000 12 80,000 4

0–17 .................. 200,000 100,000 50 70,000 32 30,000 14 10,000 4

18–24 ................. 520,000 50,000 9 380,000 73 90,000 17 — —

25–34 ................. 710,000 390,000 55 230,000 32 70,000 10 20,000 2

35–44 ................. 280,000 200,000 71 30,000 11 30,000 10 20,000 8

45–54 ................. 110,000 80,000 69 10,000 6 10,000 8 20,000 17

55 and over ............. 50,000 30,000 61 — — — — 10,000 23

Unknown age ............ 10,000 — — — — — — — —

SEX AND AGE

Total ................ 1,870,000 840,000 45 720,000 38 230,000 12 80,000 4

Male .................. 1,030,000 500,000 48 380,000 37 110,000 10 50,000 5

0–17 ................. 100,000 50,000 50 30,000 34 10,000 12 — —

18–24 ................ 260,000 30,000 10 200,000 76 40,000 14 — —

25–34 ................ 380,000 220,000 57 120,000 32 40,000 9 10,000 2

35–44 ................ 170,000 130,000 75 20,000 9 10,000 9 10,000 8

45–54 ................ 70,000 50,000 72 — — 10,000 7 10,000 16

55 and over ............ 30,000 20,000 63 — — — — 10,000 23

Unknown age ........... — — — — — — — — —

Female ................ 800,000 330,000 42 320,000 40 120,000 15 30,000 4

0–17 ................. 100,000 50,000 50 30,000 31 20,000 16 — —

18–24 ................ 240,000 20,000 8 170,000 70 50,000 21 — —

25–34 ................ 310,000 170,000 54 100,000 33 30,000 11 10,000 2

35–44 ................ 100,000 70,000 66 10,000 14 10,000 12 10,000 7

45–54 ................ 30,000 20,000 64 — — — — 10,000 18

55 and over ............ 10,000 10,000 56 — — — — — —

Unknown age ........... — — — — — — — — —

Unknown sex ............ 40,000 20,000 39 20,000 42 10,000 14 — —

— Base number or percent rounds to zero.

Notes: All class categories include both principals and dependents. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

FOR MORE INFORMATION 

For more information about immigration and immigration statistics, visit the Office of Immigration Statistics Web site at www.dhs.

gov/immigration-statistics.
6

APPENDIX 1

Table A1-1.

Resident Nonimmigrant Classes of Admission

Class Description

Temporary workers and families

Temporary workers and trainees

H1B ........ Workers in specialty occupations

H1B1 ....... Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreement aliens

H1C ........ Registered nurses participating in the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas

H2A ........ Agricultural workers

H2B ........ Nonagricultural workers

H2R ........ Returning H2B workers

H3 ......... Trainees

H4 ......... Spouses and children of H1, H2, or H3

O1 ......... Workers with extraordinary ability or achievement

O2 ......... Workers accompanying and assisting in performance of O1 workers

O3 ......... Spouses and children of O1 and O2

P1 .......... Internationally recognized athletes or entertainers

P2 .......... Artists or entertainers in reciprocal exchange programs

P3 .......... Artists or entertainers in culturally unique programs

P4 .......... Spouses and children of P1, P2, or P3

Q1 ......... Workers in international cultural exchange programs

R1 ......... Workers in religious occupations

R2 ......... Spouses and children of R1

TN .......... North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) professional workers

TD .......... Spouses and children of TN

Intracompany transferees

L1.......... Intracompany transferees

L2.......... Spouses and children of L1

Treaty traders and investors

E1 .......... Treaty traders and their spouses and children

E2 .......... Treaty investors and their spouses and children

E3 .......... Australian Free Trade Agreement principals, spouses and children

Representatives of foreign information media

I1 .......... Representatives of foreign information media and spouses and children

Students

F1.......... Academic students

F2.......... Spouses and children of F1

M1 ......... Vocational students

M2 ......... Spouses and children of M1

Exchange visitors

J1 .......... Exchange visitors

J2 .......... Spouses and children of J1

Diplomats and other representatives

A1 .......... Ambassadors, public ministers, career diplomatic or consular officers and their families

A2 .......... Other foreign government officials or employees and their families

A3 .......... Attendants, servants, or personal employees of A1 and A2 and their families

G1 ......... Principals of recognized foreign governments 

G2 ......... Other representatives of recognized foreign governments 

G3 ......... Representatives of nonrecognized or nonmember foreign governments

G4 ......... International organization officers or employees

G5 ......... Attendants, servants, or personal employees of representatives

N1 to N7 ..... North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officials, spouses, and children

Note: All class categories include both principals and dependents. 

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
APPENDIX 2

Counts of active students and exchange visitors and estimates of 

nonimmigrant academic enrollments are available from other 

sources and are presented here for comparison with the I-94-

based estimates of the population residing in the United States. 

Average population sizes for active students, exchange visitors, and 

dependents were calculated from quarterly program statistics tabulated from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System 

(see SEVIS By the Numbers). Survey-based estimates of academicyear enrollments for international students were obtained from 

the Institute of International Education (see Open Doors). The 

alternative estimates differ from the estimates presented in this 

report in that they measure types of enrollments as opposed to 

residence and, in the case of Open Doors, define students differently. Further, because the activity status of dependents in SEVIS is 

determined by the status of the principal, dependents may be 

included in the SEVIS counts without presence in, or entry into, 

the United States.

The number of active students estimated from quarterly SEVIS data 

was 860,000, which exceeds the estimated size of the population 

in residence by 29 percent (see Table A2-1). The active student 

estimate is expected to exceed the size of the residential population in general because students may retain active status while 

abroad between semesters, may be in the United States for a 

period of study lasting only a few weeks, or may travel abroad too 

often to be considered residents. 

Open Doors estimated 760,000 international student enrollments 

for the 2011/2012 academic year. The enrollment estimate was 

expected to exceed the residential population size because students may not be enrolled for the entire year or may spend part of 

the year abroad, and because the estimate includes nonimmigrant 

visa classes other than students. Open Doors also excludes some 

students, as the survey is limited to accredited institutions of 

higher education.

The number of registered dependents of active students estimated 

from quarterly SEVIS data was 80,000, which exceeds the estimated residential population size. Differences are expected, as 

registered dependents of active students are included in SEVIS 

counts regardless of presence in the U.S. The Open Doors report 

does not provide estimates of student dependents.

The numbers of active exchange visitors and dependents estimated 

from quarterly SEVIS data were 190,000 and 50,000 respectively. 

The estimate for active principals was about the same as the estimated residential population size, while the estimate for active 

dependents exceeded the residential population estimate. 

Table A2--1. 

Comparison against Alternative Data Sources

Admission group

SEVIS 

“Active”

Open Doors 

Enrolled

DHS 

Population size

Students

Active .............. 860,000 760,000 670,000

Dependents .......... 80,000 X 50,000

Exchange Visitors

Active .............. 190,000 X 190,000

Dependents .......... 50,000 X 40,000

X Not applicable.

Note: Open Doors student estimates are not restricted to nonimmigrants with F-1 or M-1 visas.

Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Institute of International Education.

REFERENCES

Hoefer, Michael, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan Baker, 2012. “Estimates of 

the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United 

States: January 2011,” Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy 

Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, http://www.dhs.

gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf.

Institute of International Education. “Open Doors 2012 Fast Facts.” 

http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/

Data/Fast-Facts.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “SEVIS by the Numbers,” 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, U.S. DHS, Q3-4 reports from fiscal year 2011 and 

Q1, Q2, and Q3 reports from fiscal year 2012. http://www.ice.

gov/sevis/outreach.htm.

7