Office of Immigration Statistics

POLICY DIRECTORATE

DECEMBER 2016 Population EstimatesEstimates of the Size and Characteristics of 

the Resident Nonimmigrant Population 

in the United States: Fiscal Year 2014

BRYAN BAKER

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

population in the United States during Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.1 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).2 The characteristics 

analyzed include category of admission (groups of related nonimmigrant visa classes), 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. 

About 1.7 million nonimmigrants resided in the United 

States on average during 2014.3 Temporary workers and 

their families4 accounted for slightly more than 45 percent of the total and students and their families 

accounted for nearly 40 percent. More than half of the 

population were citizens of Asian countries and 80 percent were ages 18 through 44.

DATA AND METHOD

Data are not available to measure the resident nonimmigrant population directly, so this report develops a 

statistical model of nonimmigrant visit lengths, and 

applies the model to the population of nonimmigrants 

entering since October 1, 2003, to estimate the 

current population.Within DHS, nonimmigrant arrival 

and departure records are collected and maintained by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP creates 

an electronic DHS Form I-94 Nonimmigrant Arrival/Departure 

Record for each admission of a nonimmigrant into the 

United States at a port of entry as part of the inspection 

1 Fiscal year (FY) 2014 refers to the period from October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014. Years refer to fiscal years unless otherwise noted.

2 See the Appendix for a complete list of nonimmigrant classes of admission that 

are considered to be associated with residence for the purpose of this report.

3 The population size fluctuates from day to day; the average during 2014 is the 

sum of the population sizes on each day during the year divided by 365.

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

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

process.5,6 Corresponding departure forms are created 

whenever CBP records the departure of a nonimmigrant, but departure records are somewhat incomplete 

because the United States does not have strict departure 

control.7 In 2014, the vast majority of departure records 

were derived from commercial air and sea carrier 

departure manifests. Other sources of nonimmigrant 

departure records included the submission of a paper 

version of the I-94 form by the nonimmigrant after 

departure, border crossing records collected by Canada 

on entries into Canada from the United States by thirdcountry nationals, and CBP Pulse and Surge operations 

to collect information from certain travelers departing 

through Southwest border ports of entry.

Although the vast majority of departures by resident 

nonimmigrants are recorded by the means described 

above, the absence of a departure record does not provide clear evidence that a nonimmigrant remains in the 

United States. In particular, an arrival record without a 

corresponding departure record also may reflect an 

5 Certain nonimmigrants, including most Mexican and Canadian visitors for business 

or pleasure arriving at land ports of entry are exempted from the I-94 form; but 

these B-1/B-2 visitors are not included in the resident nonimmigrant population 

and are outside the scope of this report.

6 The creation of the I-94 form was largely automated in 2014; in the event of an 

admission for which an I-94 form was not created electronically, the nonimmigrant 

applicant would be required to complete and submit a paper version of the form 

which would later be transcribed into electronic form at a CBP processing center.

7 There is no parallel to the formal admission inspection process for departing from 

the United States.
2

unrecorded departure or a recorded departure that could not be 

matched to its corresponding arrival.8 The cumulative impact of 

unrecorded departures and unmatched records over a period of 

years is too large to allow for a direct measurement of the nonimmigrant population based solely on arrival and departure records.

In addition, no nationally representative surveys exist that are immediately useful for estimating or measuring the resident 

nonimmigrant population. Although several representative surveys 

distinguish between native- and foreign-born persons, no large, 

national surveys distinguish between (temporary) nonimmigrants 

and (permanent) immigrants.

Because these “first choice” possibilities (direct measurement and 

survey estimation) are ruled out or not readily available, this report 

uses a three-step statistical model to estimate the resident nonimmigrant population. The first step is to construct visit length frequency 

tables by matching FY 2014 departures back to their associated 

arrival data, incorporating arrival records from 2004-2014. 

Frequency tables were constructed for each class of admission and 

country of citizenship. Second, these frequency tables were used to 

construct probability models describing the probability that a nonimmigrant would stay for at least a given number of days based on 

the person’s nationality and visa class of admission. For example, 

based on historical patterns, what is the probability that a Mexican 

national with an H-2A visa will depart the United States on or 

before the 100th day of her visit? Third, the probability model was 

deployed for each day of the year and for every nonimmigrant who 

arrived in the United States since FY 2004, based on the nonimmigrant’s nationality, visa class of admission, and date of admission 

into the United States. These estimates were added up to produce a 

total estimated number of days nonimmigrants were present during 

FY 2014, and the total was divided by 365 to yield the average population size for the year.

Equation 1.

Where X is the set of all admissions of resident nonimmigrants in 

2004-2014, D(x) is the set of all dates in 2014 that occurred on or 

after A(x), the admission date for x, L is a random variable representing the length of the nonimmigrant visit in days,and f(x) and 

g(x) are the country of citizenship and class of admission of x.

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

on average. The two-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 

8 Prior analysis found corresponding departure records for approximately 85 percent of all resident 

nonimmigrant arrival records over a four-year period; the remaining 15 percent had not departed, 

departed without record, or departed without generating a matchable record.

by omitting records for persons exhibiting likely commuter behavior 

(defined here as arriving in the United States seven or more times 

per year).

LIMITATIONS

The accuracy and precision of the population estimates depend on 

how well the visit-length probability models derived from 2014 

departure cohorts represent the visit-length probabilities for all 

visits, the choice of classification variables, and the veracity of the 

assumptions. Some important limitations are covered below. 

Assumptions underlying the probability models

The use of visit-length frequency tables to construct probability 

models requires the assumptions that no correlation exists 

between visit length and the failure to record a departure or the 

inability to match a departure to a prior arrival. The first assumption is likely unproblematic: an airline’s failure to submit a 

departure manifest for a flight, for example, should not be related 

to the visit length of the people on board the flight. The second 

assumption is somewhat flawed, however, as relatively long visits 

are more likely to have an arrival that occurred prior to the advent 

of electronic I-94 forms, and matching to user-submitted, handwritten forms is not as accurate as matching to electronic forms 

that were automatically generated based on travel documents 

(e.g., a machine-readable passport). Nonetheless, changes in the 

match rate over time should have a minimal impact on the model 

because more than 97 percent of departure records used to build 

the frequency tables were successfully matched back to their 

prior arrivals.

Adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident status

Departure data were not available for persons who were admitted as 

nonimmigrants and then adjusted to lawful permanent resident 

(LPR) status prior to their next departure. To the extent that people 

who adjust status tend to have shorter or longer stays than people 

who do not adjust status, the estimates may be biased downward or 

upward. The impact, if any, would likely be concentrated among 

visa classes and countries with higher adjustment rates. For example, the ratios of LPR adjustments to nonimmigrant admissions in 

2010 were one to five for H-4 dependents (i.e., there was one 

adjustment to LPR status for every five nonimmigrant admissions), 

one to nine for H-1B workers, and only one to 60 for seasonal 

workers. Results are presented only for broad categories of admission classes, instead of for individual classes of admission, to 

smooth over or wash out the potential bias arising from status 

adjustments within any single class of admission. 

Increasing arrival volume

The observed visit-length distributions are based on completed 

visits with an arrival between October 1, 2003, and September 30, 

2014, and a departure recorded between October 1, 2013, and 

September 30, 2014. Because arrival flow tends to increase slightly 

each year, departures in the most recent year disproportionately 

reflect more recent arrivals. Therefore the visit-length 
3

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 visitlength distribution is constant across time. Although the 

visit-length distributions are not exactly the same each year, they 

are relatively stable for the classes of admission and countries of 

citizenship with the largest contributions to the total.

Missing characteristics

The age, sex, state, or country fields were missing from some 

records9 and were assumed to be missing completely at random. 

When missing, age, sex, and state were imputed based on the age, 

sex, and state distributions of nonimmigrants with the same class 

of admission and country of citizenship. Country was imputed 

based on the country of citizenship of persons with the same class 

of admission.

RESULTS

Overview

About 1.7 million resident-class nonimmigrants resided in the 

United States in 2014 (see Table 1). Nearly half were temporary 

workers, almost four in 10 were students, and slightly more than 

one in 10 were exchange visitors. Although the total number was 

somewhat smaller than when last reported (1.9 million in January 

9 Country was missing from fewer than two percent of the records. Age, sex, and state were missing 

from fewer than three percent, nine percent, and five percent of the records, respectively.

of 2012), the percentages by category of admission were largely 

unchanged (Baker, 2014).

The Student and Exchange Visitor Program, managed by DHS 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reported that there were 

1.05 million nonimmigrants “studying in the United States” on 

student visas and 244,766 exchange visitors “in the United States” 

in July of 2015 (ICE, 2015). ICE also reported 152,553 student 

and exchange visitor dependents, but did not distinguish between 

the principal classes for those dependents. As the numbers 

reported by ICE are nearly 70 percent higher than the numbers 

reported here, it is important to note that the numbers reported 

by ICE are counts of persons with “active status” at a particular 

point in time, which is different from counting the number of persons residing within the United States and different from an annual average.

For example, 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. Further, “active status” may not terminate 

until sometime after the nonimmigrant departs from the United 

States. Lastly, “active status” for dependents is derived from the 

status of the principal nonimmigrant, regardless of whether or not 

the dependents ever travel to the United States.

Region and country of citizenship

More than half of the resident nonimmigrants were citizens of 

Asian countries (see Figure 1), led by India (about 25 percent), 

and China (nearly 15 percent).10 The top sending country for 

10 All percentages in the tables and text were calculated before rounding. Calculations based on 

rounded estimates may yield different results.

Table 1. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population Estimates by Category of Admission and Region and Top 10 Countries of Citizenship: 

Fiscal Year 2014

Region and 

country of 

citizenship

Total Temporary workers Students Exchange visitors

Diplomats and other 

representatives

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

REGION

Total ...... 1,730,000 100% 790,000 100% 670,000 100% 200,000 100% 70,000 100%

Asia ........ 960,000 56% 430,000 54% 440,000 67% 70,000 35% 20,000 30%

Europe ...... 250,000 14% 110,000 14% 50,000 7% 60,000 33% 20,000 28%

North America . 230,000 13% 170,000 21% 40,000 6% 10,000 7% 10,000 10%

South America . 80,000 4% 20,000 3% 30,000 4% 20,000 9% 10,000 10%

Other ........ 210,000 12% 60,000 7% 110,000 16% 30,000 16% 10,000 22%

COUNTRY

Total ...... 1,730,000 100% 790,000 100% 670,000 100% 200,000 100% 70,000 100%

India ........ 410,000 24% 320,000 40% 80,000 13% 10,000 4% — —

China ....... 240,000 14% 20,000 3% 190,000 28% 30,000 14% — —

Mexico ...... 100,000 6% 90,000 11% 10,000 2% — — — —

Canada ...... 100,000 6% 70,000 9% 20,000 3% 10,000 3% — —

Korea, South .. 100,000 6% 20,000 3% 60,000 9% 10,000 6% — —

Japan ....... 70,000 4% 50,000 6% 20,000 3% 10,000 4% — —

Saudi Arabia .. 70,000 4% — — 60,000 10% — — — —

United Kingdom 50,000 3% 30,000 4% 10,000 1% 10,000 4% — —

Germany ..... 40,000 2% 20,000 2% 10,000 1% 10,000 7% — —

France ....... 30,000 2% 20,000 2% 10,000 1% 10,000 4% — —

All others ..... 500,000 29% 160,000 20% 190,000 29% 100,000 51% 40,000 62%

— Base number or percent rounds to zero.

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding; percentages are column percentages; percentages and totals were calculated prior to rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
4

temporary workers was India, which sent 40 percent of all temporary workers; India was followed by Mexico and Canada with 

about 10 percent each. Among students, the leading countries 

were China (nearly 30 percent), India (nearly 15 percent), Saudi 

Arabia (10 percent), and South Korea (9 percent). The exchange 

visitor and diplomats and other representatives categories were 

relatively diverse; China was the only country to send more than 

10 percent of the exchange visitors and no country sent more 

than 10 percent of the diplomats and other representatives.

In addition to being the top two sending countries overall, India 

and China also demonstrate how trends vary by geography (see 

Figure 2). For example, reading across the rows of Table 1 reveals 

that more than 75 percent of the Indian nationals were admitted as 

temporary workers, compared to only 10 percent of the Chinese 

nationals. From another perspective, nearly 80 percent of the 

Chinese nationals were admitted as students, compared to only 

about 20 percent of the Indian nationals. Finally, about 10 percent 

of the Chinese nationals were admitted as exchange visitors, compared to fewer than 5 percent of Indian nationals.

The next leading countries were Mexico, Canada, South Korea, 

Japan, and Saudi Arabia. Mexico trended similarly to India, with 

more than 80 percent admitted as temporary workers and only 

about 10 percent as students. Canada and Japan also favored temporary workers, but to a lesser extent, with 60 to 70 percent admitted 

as workers and about 20 to 25 percent admitted as students. South 

Korea and Saudi Arabia were more like China and favored students. 

Nearly 65 percent of South Korean nationals were students and 

about 20 percent were temporary workers. Saudi Arabia was an 

Table 2. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population Estimates by Category of Admission and State of Destination: Fiscal Year 2014

State of destination

Total Temporary workers Students Exchange visitors

Diplomats and

other representatives

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total .............. 1,730,000 100% 790,000 100% 670,000 100% 200,000 100% 70,000 100%

California ............. 290,000 17% 130,000 17% 120,000 18% 30,000 14% — —

New York ............. 210,000 12% 80,000 11% 80,000 12% 30,000 13% 20,000 24%

Texas ............... 140,000 8% 90,000 11% 40,000 6% 10,000 5% — —

Florida ............... 90,000 5% 50,000 6% 30,000 5% 10,000 4% — —

Massachusetts ........ 90,000 5% 30,000 3% 50,000 7% 20,000 8% — —

New Jersey ........... 80,000 4% 50,000 7% 20,000 2% 10,000 4% — —

Illinois ............... 80,000 4% 40,000 5% 30,000 5% 10,000 4% — —

Pennsylvania .......... 60,000 3% 30,000 4% 20,000 3% — — — —

Virginia .............. 60,000 3% 20,000 3% 30,000 4% 10,000 3% — —

Washington ........... 50,000 3% 30,000 3% 20,000 3% 10,000 3% — —

All others ............. 590,000 34% 250,000 31% 230,000 34% 80,000 41% 30,000 52%

— Base number or percent rounds to zero.

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding; percentages are column percentages; percentages and totals were calculated prior to rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

 
5

Table 3. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population Estimates by Category of Admission, Age, and Sex: Fiscal Year 2014

Characteristic

Total Temporary workers Students Exchange visitors

Diplomats and

other representatives

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Age group

Total .............. 1,730,000 100% 790,000 100% 670,000 100% 200,000 100% 70,000 100%

0–17 ................ 200,000 12% 100,000 12% 70,000 11% 20,000 12% 10,000 9%

18–24 ............... 530,000 30% 50,000 6% 390,000 59% 80,000 40% — —

25–34 ............... 620,000 36% 370,000 46% 180,000 26% 60,000 31% 10,000 21%

35–44 ............... 240,000 14% 180,000 23% 20,000 3% 20,000 12% 20,000 28%

45–54 ............... 100,000 6% 70,000 9% — — 10,000 3% 20,000 24%

55 and over ........... 40,000 2% 20,000 3% — — — — 10,000 13%

Sex and age group

Total .............. 1,730,000 790,000 670,000 200,000 70,000 

Male ................ 990,000 100% 480,000 100% 370,000 100% 90,000 100% 40,000 100%

0–17 ............... 100,000 10% 50,000 10% 40,000 11% 10,000 12% — —

18–24 .............. 280,000 29% 30,000 6% 220,000 59% 30,000 35% — —

25–34 .............. 350,000 35% 210,000 44% 100,000 27% 30,000 33% 10,000 20%

35–44 .............. 160,000 16% 120,000 25% 10,000 3% 10,000 14% 10,000 29%

45–54 .............. 70,000 7% 50,000 11% — — — — 10,000 25%

55 and over .......... 30,000 3% 20,000 4% — — — — 10,000 14%

Female .............. 740,000 100% 310,000 100% 300,000 100% 100,000 100% 20,000 100%

0–17 ............... 100,000 13% 50,000 15% 30,000 11% 10,000 13% — —

18–24 .............. 240,000 33% 20,000 6% 170,000 58% 50,000 45% — —

25–34 .............. 270,000 37% 160,000 51% 80,000 26% 30,000 29% 10,000 23%

35–44 .............. 90,000 12% 60,000 19% 10,000 3% 10,000 10% 10,000 26%

45–54 .............. 30,000 4% 20,000 6% — — — — 10,000 21%

55 and over .......... 10,000 1% 10,000 2% — — — — — —

— Base number or percent rounds to zero.

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding; percentages are column percentages; percentages and totals were calculated prior to rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

extreme with more than 90 percent students and making up 10 

percent of the student total despite comprising fewer than 5 percent 

of the overall total.

State of destination

California was the leading destination state overall (290,000 persons, slightly more than 15 percent of the total) and the leading 

state for both temporary workers and students (15 to 20 percent 

of the total numbers) (see Table 2). The next leading states for 

temporary workers were Texas and New York, with slightly more 

than 10 percent of the total, each. The next leading states for students were New York and Massachusetts, with 12 percent and 7 

percent of the total, respectively. California and New York were the 

leading states for exchange visitors, with more than 25 percent of 

 
6

workers tended to be slightly older than average, with nearly 70 

percent ages 25 to 44 (see Figure 4). Students were younger, with 

nearly 60 percent ages 18 to 24 and 85 percent ages 18 to 34. 

Exchange visitors, many of whom are also students, resembled 

the student population with slightly more than 70 percent ages 

18 to 34. Diplomats tended to be older, with nearly 25 percent 

ages 45 to 54 and nearly 75 percent ages 25 to 54. The proportions were generally similar for males and females for each 

category of admission, though the female diplomats and other 

representatives trended younger than the males. Slightly more 

than 60 percent of temporary workers and diplomats were male, 

55 percent of students were male, and a slim majority of 

exchange visitors were female.

REFERENCES

Baker, Bryan, 2014. “Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population in the United States: January 

2012,” Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, https://www.dhs.gov/publication/estimates-resident-nonimmigrant-population-january-2012

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

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2015. “SEVIS by the Numbers, 

General Summary Quarterly Review, July 2015,” Student and 

Exchange Visitor Program, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/

sevis/pdf/by-the-numbers1.pdf

the total going to those two states. Nearly 25 percent of diplomats 

and other representatives of foreign governments and international organizations went to New York.

Most of the top 10 destinations states had higher concentrations 

of workers than students (see Figure 3). The notable exceptions 

were Massachusetts and Virginia, where slightly more than 50 percent of the resident nonimmigrants were students (compared to 

about 40 percent nationwide).

Age and sex

About 80 percent of all resident nonimmigrants were ages 18 to 

44 and nearly 60 percent were male (see Table 3). Temporary 

 
7

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 ........ Temporary agricultural workers

H2B ........ Temporary skilled workers

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

H3 ......... Trainees and participants in a special educational exchange program

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 and their essential support personnel

P2 ......... Artists or entertainers in reciprocal exchange programs and their essential support personnel

P3 ......... Artists or entertainers in culturally unique programs and their essential support personnel

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

Q1 ......... Participants in international cultural exchange programs

R1 ......... Workers in religious vocations or 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 immediate family

A3 .......... Attendants, servants, or personal employees of A1 and A2 and immediate family

G1 ......... Principals of recognized foreign governments and immediate family

G2 ......... Other representatives of recognized foreign governments and immediate family

G3 ......... Representatives of nonrecognized or nonmember foreign governments and immediate family

G4 ......... International organization officers or employees and immediate family

G5 ......... Attendants, servants, or personal employees of representatives and immediate family

N1 to N7 ..... North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officials, immediate family, and dependents

Note: All class categories include both principals and dependents. 

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.