Population Estimates MARCH 2018

Nonimmigrants Residing in the 

United States: Fiscal Year 2016

BRYAN BAKER

This report presents estimates of the size and characteristics of the population of nonimmigrants 

residing in the United States in fiscal year 2016.1,2 Nonimmigrants are foreign nationals admitted into 

the United States for specific, temporary purposes. Examples of such temporary purposes include 

tourism, work, study, participation in an exchange program, representing a foreign government or 

international organization, and accompanying a principal nonimmigrant as an immediate family 

member or, in some cases, as a member of the principal nonimmigrant’s staff. This report focuses 

exclusively on nonimmigrants admitted for purposes associated with residence, such as work and 

study, and excludes nonimmigrants admitted for non-residential purposes, such as tourism.3

The estimates presented here are derived from U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administrative 

records of nonimmigrant arrivals and departures. Data 

are not available to measure the resident nonimmigrant 

population directly, so this report uses a statistical model 

of nonimmigrant visit lengths and applies the model to 

the population of nonimmigrants entering since 2007 

to estimate the current population. Details about the 

data and a description of the estimation method are 

available in the Appendices.

RESULTS

SUMMARY

About 2.3 million nonimmigrant workers, students, 

exchange visitors, and diplomats and other representatives resided in the United States in 2016 (see Table 1), 

up from about 2.0 million in 2015.4

 Although the total 

number of nonimmigrant residents increased by only 

about 15 percent, the number increased by nearly 30 

percent among Asians. More than 60 percent of temporary residents in 2016 were citizens of Asian countries 

(mostly India and China), and about 15 percent each 

were from Europe and North America (mostly Mexico 

1 Hereafter, “year” will refer to the fiscal year unless otherwise specified. Fiscal 

year 2016 ran from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016.

2 This report responds to a Government Accountability Office recommendation 

regarding temporary residents (GGD-98-164, p. 37, Table 4.1, Row C).

3 A list of specific nonimmigrant classes of admission associated with residence 

and grouped by general visit purposes is provided in the Appendix. 

4 See previous editions of this report at https://www.dhs.gov/

immigration-statistics. 

and Canada).5 Nearly 50 percent were temporary workers, nearly 40 percent were students, 11 percent were 

exchange visitors, and the remaining four percent were 

diplomats and other representatives.6 More than 55 percent were male, about 30 percent were ages 18 to 24, 

and about 50 percent were ages 25–44.

Region and Country of Citizenship

About 60 percent of the resident nonimmigrants were 

citizens of Asian countries (see Figure 1), led by India 

(25 percent) and China (15 percent). Other than being 

the top two sending countries, the patterns were different for India and China (see Figure 2). Seventy-five 

percent of Indian nationals were admitted as temporary 

workers, making up about 40 percent of the temporary 

worker total, whereas about 75 percent of Chinese 

nationals were admitted as students, comprising 30 percent of the student total. China also accounted for 15 

percent of the exchange visitor total, compared to 

India’s four percent.

The next leading countries were Mexico, Canada, South 

Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. Mexico trended similarly 

to India, with 85 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 about 65 to 70 percent workers and about 20 to 25 

percent students, respectively. South Korea and Saudi 

Arabia were more like China, favoring students. More 

5 Here and throughout, percentages presented in the text follow standard rounding 

practices for readability; please refer to tables for more precise estimates.

6 Each category should be read to include accompanying family members and staff.

Office of Immigration Statistics

OFFICE OF STRATEGY, POLICY & PLANS
2

Table 1. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population Estimates: FY 2016 by Category of Admission and Region and Top 10 Countries of Citizenship

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. . . . . . . . . 2,300,000 100% 1,100,000 100% 870,000 100% 240,000 100% 90,000 100%

Asia. . . . . . . . . . . 1,410,000 61% 610,000 55% 680,000 77% 100,000 42% 30,000 33%

Europe. . . . . . . . . 340,000 15% 160,000 15% 70,000 8% 90,000 36% 30,000 31%

North America. . . . 340,000 15% 250,000 23% 60,000 7% 20,000 8% 10,000 12%

South America. . . . 110,000 5% 40,000 3% 40,000 4% 20,000 10% 10,000 10%

Other or Unknown. . 90,000 4% 40,000 3% 30,000 4% 10,000 4% 10,000 14%

COUNTRY

Total. . . . . . . . . 2,300,000 100% 1,100,000 100% 870,000 100% 240,000 100% 90,000 100%

India. . . . . . . . . . . 580,000 25% 440,000 40% 140,000 15% 10,000 4% — —

China. . . . . . . . . . 340,000 15% 40,000 4% 260,000 30% 40,000 15% — —

Mexico. . . . . . . . . 160,000 7% 130,000 12% 10,000 2% 10,000 2% — —

Canada. . . . . . . . . 140,000 6% 100,000 9% 30,000 3% 10,000 3% — —

Korea, South. . . . . 100,000 4% 20,000 2% 60,000 7% 10,000 5% — —

Japan. . . . . . . . . . 90,000 4% 60,000 5% 20,000 2% 10,000 4% — —

Saudi Arabia. . . . . 80,000 3% — — 70,000 8% — — — —

United Kingdom. . . 60,000 3% 40,000 4% 10,000 1% 10,000 3% — —

Germany. . . . . . . . 50,000 2% 20,000 2% 10,000 1% 20,000 7% — —

France. . . . . . . . . . 50,000 2% 20,000 2% 10,000 1% 10,000 4% — —

All others. . . . . . . . 650,000 28% 220,000 20% 250,000 29% 130,000 51% 50,000 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.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Diplomats and other representatives

Exchange visitors

Students

Temporary workers

All othersSouth AmericaNorth AmericaEuropeAsia

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Figure 1.

Resident Nonimmigrants by Category of Admission 

and Region of Citizenship: FY 2016

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Figure 2.

Resident Nonimmigrants by Category of Admission 

and Country of Citizenship: FY 2016

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

Exchange visitors

Students

Temporary workers 

Saudi ArabiaJapanKorea, SouthCanadaMexicoChinaIndia
3

than 60 percent of South Korean nationals were students and almost 

25 percent were temporary workers. Saudi Arabia was an extreme 

with more than 90 percent students and making up eight percent of 

the student total despite comprising only three percent of the 

overall total.

State of Destination

California was the leading destination state overall (410,000 persons, nearly 20 percent of the total) and the leading state for 

temporary workers, students, and exchange visitors (15 to 20 percent of the total numbers) (see Table 2). The next leading states for 

temporary workers were Texas and New York, each of which 

accounted for about 10 percent of the total. The next leading states 

for students were New York and Massachusetts, with 13 percent 

and seven percent of the total, respectively. New York and 

Massachusetts were also the next leading states for exchange visitors.7

 Nearly 25 percent of diplomats and other representatives of 

7 Many exchange visitors study in the United States as part of their exchange programs.

foreign governments and international organizations went to New 

York and nearly 20 percent went to Washington, D.C.8

Most of the top ten destination states had higher concentrations of 

workers than students (see Figure 3). The concentrations were 

especially rich in Texas and New Jersey, with 60 to 70 percent 

workers compared to about 45 percent nationally. The largest percentage increase in temporary workers among the top 10 states 

was Florida, which increased nearly 25 percent from 60,000 in 

2015 to 75,000 in 2016.9 Massachusetts and Pennsylvania were 

exceptions to this trend, with students comprising 50 to 55 percent of resident nonimmigrants in those two states, as compared 

to slightly less than 40 percent of the resident nonimmigrant 

population overall.

8 Another 20 percent of diplomats listed Virginia and Maryland as their destination states; altogether, nearly 40 percent of diplomats and other representatives may have gone to Washington, 

D.C., or the immediate surrounding area.

9 The temporary worker population increased by nearly 25 percent along the entire southern half of 

the East Coast, from Florida through North Carolina.

Table 2. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population Estimates: FY 2016 by Category of Admission and State of Destination

State of destination

Total Temporary workers Students Exchange visitors

Diplomats and

other representatives

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,300,000 100% 1,100,000 100% 870,000 100% 240,000 100% 90,000 100%

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . 410,000 18% 200,000 18% 170,000 19% 40,000 15% 10,000 7%

New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . 280,000 12% 110,000 10% 110,000 13% 30,000 14% 20,000 23%

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190,000 8% 120,000 11% 50,000 6% 10,000 5% — — 

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,000 6% 80,000 7% 50,000 5% 10,000 5% — — 

Massachusetts. . . . . . . . 110,000 5% 30,000 3% 60,000 7% 20,000 8% — — 

Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000 4% 50,000 4% 40,000 5% 10,000 4% — — 

New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . 100,000 4% 70,000 6% 20,000 2% 10,000 3% — — 

Washington. . . . . . . . . . . 80,000 3% 40,000 4% 30,000 3% 10,000 2% — — 

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . 70,000 3% 30,000 2% 40,000 4% 10,000 3% — — 

Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,000 3% 30,000 3% 20,000 3% 10,000 3% — — 

All others. . . . . . . . . . . . . 760,000 33% 340,000 31% 280,000 32% 90,000 39% 40,000 51%

— 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.

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Figure 3.

Resident Nonimmigrants by Category of Admission and State of Destination: FY 2016

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

 Diplomats and other representatives 

 Exchange visitors 

 Students 

 Temporary workers 

MichiganPennsylvaniaWashingtonNew JerseyIllinoisMassachusettsFloridaTexasNew YorkCalifornia
4

Age and Sex

About 80 percent of all resident nonimmigrants were ages 18 to 

44 and more than 55 percent were male (see Table 3). Temporary 

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

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

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 75 percent ages 18 to 34. 

Diplomats tended to be older, with 25 percent ages 45 to 54 and 

nearly 15 percent ages 55 or older. The proportions were generally 

similar for males and females for each category of admission, 

though female diplomats and other representatives trended 

younger than the males. Slightly more than 60 percent of temporary workers and diplomats were male, about 55 percent of 

students were male, and slightly more than 50 percent of 

exchange visitors were female.

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Figure 4.

Resident Nonimmigrants by Category of Admission 

and Age Group: FY 2016

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

Diplomats and other representatives

Exchange visitors

Students

Temporary workers

55 and older45–5435–4425–3418–240–17

Table 3. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population Estimates by Category of Admission, Age, and Sex: FY 2016

Characteristic

Total Temporary workers Students Exchange visitors

Diplomats and

other representatives

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Age group

Total .............. 2,300,000 100% 1,100,000 100% 870,000 100% 240,000 100% 90,000 100%

0–17 ................ 260,000 11% 140,000 12% 90,000 10% 30,000 12% 10,000 9%

18–24 ............... 690,000 30% 70,000 6% 520,000 60% 100,000 40% — —

25–34 ............... 830,000 36% 500,000 46% 230,000 26% 80,000 32% 20,000 21%

35–44 ............... 340,000 15% 260,000 23% 20,000 3% 30,000 12% 20,000 28%

45–54 ............... 130,000 6% 100,000 9% 10,000 1% 10,000 3% 20,000 24%

55 and older .......... 50,000 2% 40,000 3% — — — — 10,000 13%

Sex and age group

Total .............. 2,300,000 1,100,000 870,000 240,000 90,000 

Male ................ 1,320,000 100% 670,000 100% 480,000 100% 110,000 100% 60,000 100%

0–17 ............... 130,000 10% 70,000 10% 50,000 10% 10,000 12% — —

18–24 .............. 380,000 28% 40,000 7% 290,000 60% 40,000 34% — —

25–34 .............. 460,000 35% 280,000 42% 130,000 27% 40,000 34% 10,000 20%

35–44 .............. 220,000 17% 170,000 26% 10,000 3% 20,000 15% 20,000 29%

45–54 .............. 90,000 7% 70,000 11% — — — — 10,000 26%

55 and older ......... 40,000 3% 30,000 4% — — — — 10,000 14%

Female .............. 980,000 100% 430,000 100% 390,000 100% 130,000 100% 30,000 100%

0–17 ............... 130,000 13% 70,000 16% 40,000 11% 20,000 12% — —

18–24 .............. 310,000 32% 20,000 5% 230,000 59% 60,000 44% — —

25–34 .............. 370,000 37% 220,000 51% 100,000 26% 40,000 30% 10,000 22%

35–44 .............. 120,000 12% 80,000 20% 10,000 3% 10,000 11% 10,000 27%

45–54 .............. 40,000 4% 30,000 6% — — — — 10,000 22%

55 and older ......... 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.
5

APPENDIX I—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES ASSOCIATED WITH RESIDENCE

Table A1.

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 non-agricultural 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

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
6

APPENDIX II—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 2007 to estimate the current population.

Data

Within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (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 resident nonimmigrant into the United States as 

part of the inspection process at a port of entry.10,11 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 screen travelers at the point of 

departure. Instead, the vast majority of departure records are derived 

from commercial air and sea carrier departure manifests. Other 

sources of nonimmigrant departure records include 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 third-country 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 unrecorded departure or a recorded departure that could not be matched 

to its corresponding arrival.12 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 departures in 2016 back to their associated 

arrival data, incorporating arrival records from 2007-2016. 

Frequency tables were constructed for each class of admission and 

10 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. 

11 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.

12 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.

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 his or 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 2007, 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 

2016, 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 immigrants in 2007–2016, 

D(x) is the set of all dates in 2016 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.13 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 (Baker, forthcoming). Because admission under a residence 

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

were further restricted 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 fiscal 

year 2016 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 

13 See Appendix I for a list of resident nonimmigrant classes of admission.
7

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 about 96 percent of departure records used to build the frequency tables were successfully 

matched back to their prior arrivals. 

Adjustment to LPR status

Departure data were not available for persons who were admitted 

as nonimmigrants, but who subsequently adjusted to lawful permanent resident status. 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 adjustments to admissions in fiscal year 2010 were 1 to 5 

for H4 dependents, 1 to 9 for H-1B workers, and only 1 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, 2006, and September 30, 

2016, and a departure recorded between October 1, 2015, and 

September 30, 2016. 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 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 records14

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. 

APPENDIX III—OTHER SOURCES OF DATA ON STUDENTS 

AND EXCHANGE VISITORS

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Institute of International 

Education (IIE) also count or estimate the number of foreign students studying in the United States, but with key differences. ICE 

counts F-1 (academic) and M-1 (vocational) students listed as 

“active” in the ICE Student and Exchange Visitor Information 

System on the date of the query. IIE counts F-1 and J-1 (exchange 

visitor) enrollments at accredited institutions of higher education 

14 State was missing from about six percent of the records. Country, age, or sex was missing from 

less than 0.5 percent.

or in optional practical training after completing a degree program. These counts of active students or enrollments provide 

information on program participation, but do not measure or estimate the average number of foreign students living in the United 

States during the course of the year.

The Student and Exchange Visitor Program, managed by ICE, reported 

that there were about 1.2 million nonimmigrants “studying in the 

United States” on student visas and about 200,000 exchange visitors 

“in the United States” in March of 2016 (ICE, 2016). ICE also 

reported about 157,000 student and exchange visitor dependents, 

but did not distinguish between the principal classes for those dependents. As the student numbers reported by ICE are about 40 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.

The numbers reported by IIE15 are survey estimates of academic 

enrollments at accredited institutions of higher learning by nonimmigrants with academic student (F) or exchange visitor (J) 

visas.16 The IIE enrollment counts are expected to exceed DHS student population estimates because an enrolled student may be 

outside the United States for most or part of the year and because 

DHS does not include exchange visitors in its student estimates.17

Further, not all exchange visitors are students, so a clear comparison is not possible. IIE reported about 1.04 million enrollments in 

the 2015–2016 academic year,18 compared to a DHS population 

estimate of 870,000 students and about 1.1 million students and 

exchange visitors, combined.

REFERENCES

Bryan Baker, forthcoming. “Estimates of the Unauthorized 

Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 

2014,” Office of Immigration Statistics, Office of Strategy, Policy, 

and Plans, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Institute of International Education, 2016. “International Student 

Enrollment Trends, 1948/49-2015/2016.” Open Doors Report 

on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from 

http://www.iie.org/opendoors.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2016. “SEVIS by the 

Numbers, General Summary Quarterly Review, March 2016,” 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

15 See the IIE Open Doors web publication: https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors.

16 The IIE estimates also include persons engaged in optional practical training (OPT).

17 DHS student estimates include some types of students that IIE estimates do not (vocational 

students and secondary school students), but the numbers are very small in comparison.

18 Including about 150,000 former students engaged in OPT.