Office of Immigration Statistics

POLICY DIRECTORATE

SEPTEMBER 2017 Population EstimatesNonimmigrants Residing in the 

United States: Fiscal Year 2015

BRYAN BAKER

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

residing in the United States in fiscal year 2015.1,2 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 2006 

to estimate the current population. Details about the 

data and a description of the estimation method are 

available in the Appendix.

RESULTS

SUMMARY

About 2.0 million nonimmigrant workers, students, 

exchange visitors, and diplomats and other representatives resided in the United States in 2015 (Table 1), up 

from about 1.8 million in 2014.4

 Although the number 

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

year 2015 ran from Oct. 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015.

2 This report responds to a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendation that the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service take steps to 

improve data on immigration stocks and flows (GGD-98-164, p. 37, Row C). GAO 

recommended that the Department begin publishing a population estimate covering students, temporary workers and their families, and temporary visitors in the 

country for a year or more, along with estimates of the net change in this population and annual emigration (outflows from the United States) among this group. 

This report encompasses students, temporary workers and their families, and 

other nonimmigrants associated with long-term residence; but the report defines 

long-term residence to mean classes of admission characterized by visits lasting 

at least two months on average. In addition, the report does not explicitly address 

GAO’s recommendation that the Department report on nonimmigrant emigration, 

though nonimmigrant departure data are used to estimate the number of nonimmigrants present in the United States.

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 the 2014 edition of this report for details: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Nonimmigrant_Population%20Estimates_2014.pdf. 

of nonimmigrant residents increased, the demographic 

make-up and visit purposes remained largely 

unchanged. Nearly 55 percent of temporary residents in 

2015 were citizens of Asian countries (mostly India and 

China), and about 15 percent each were from Europe 

and North America (mostly Mexico and Canada). About 

45 percent were temporary workers, nearly 40 percent 

were students, 11 percent were exchange visitors, and 

the remaining 4 percent were diplomats and other representatives.5

 Nearly 60 percent were male, about 30 

percent were ages 18 to 24, and about 50 percent were 

ages 25 to 44. The stability is noteworthy because of the 

temporary nature of the population. Unlike native populations, in which change is largely driven by births and 

deaths and tends to occur very slowly, nonimmigrant 

populations have very high levels of entries and exits 

relative to the population size and have the potential to 

change relatively quickly.

Region and Country of Citizenship

More than half of the resident nonimmigrants were citizens of Asian countries (Figure 1), led by India (nearly 

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

being the top two sending countries, the patterns were 

different for India and China (Figure 2). Seventy-five 

percent of Indian nationals were admitted as temporary 

workers, making up more than 35 percent of the temporary worker total, whereas about 75 percent of 

Chinese nationals were admitted as students, comprising about 30 percent of the student total. China also 

5 Each category should be read to include accompanying family members and staff.
2

Table 1. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population Estimates by Category of Admission and Region and Top 10 Countries of Citizenship: FY 2015

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 ...... 2,010,000 100% 930,000 100% 770,000 100% 230,000 100% 80,000 100%

Asia ........ 1,100,000 54% 470,000 51% 520,000 68% 80,000 34% 20,000 28%

Europe ...... 280,000 14% 140,000 15% 50,000 7% 70,000 32% 20,000 28%

North America . 310,000 15% 230,000 24% 50,000 7% 20,000 8% 10,000 12%

South America . 100,000 5% 30,000 3% 30,000 4% 30,000 11% 10,000 10%

Other ........ 230,000 11% 70,000 7% 110,000 14% 30,000 15% 20,000 22%

COUNTRY

Total ...... 2,010,000 100% 930,000 100% 770,000 100% 230,000 100% 80,000 100%

India ........ 460,000 23% 350,000 37% 100,000 14% 10,000 3% — —

China ....... 290,000 14% 30,000 3% 230,000 29% 30,000 15% — —

Mexico ...... 140,000 7% 120,000 13% 10,000 2% 10,000 2% — —

Canada ...... 130,000 7% 90,000 10% 30,000 4% 10,000 3% — —

South Korea. . . 100,000 5% 20,000 2% 60,000 8% 10,000 5% — —

Japan ....... 80,000 4% 50,000 6% 20,000 3% 10,000 4% — —

Saudi Arabia .. 80,000 4% — — 80,000 10% — — — —

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 ....... 40,000 2% 20,000 2% 10,000 1% 10,000 4% — —

All others ..... 580,000 29% 190,000 20% 220,000 29% 120,000 52% 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.

 
3

accounted for 15 percent of the exchange visitor total, compared 

to India’s 3 percent.

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

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

nearly 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 60 to 70 percent workers and about 20 to 25 percent students. South Korea and Saudi 

Arabia were more like China, favoring students. Nearly 65 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 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 (350,000 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) (Table 2). The next leading states for temporary workers were Texas and New York, each of which accounted 

for slightly more than 10 percent of the total. The next leading 

states for students were New York and Massachusetts, with 13 percent and 7 percent of the total, respectively. California and New 

York were the leading states for exchange visitors, with nearly 30 

percent of 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 and nearly 20 percent went to Washington, D.C.

Most of the top ten destination states had higher concentrations of 

workers than students (Figure 3). The concentrations were especially rich in Texas and New Jersey, with 60 to 70 percent workers 

compared to about 45 percent nationally. 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 about 40 percent of the resident nonimmigrant population overall.

Table 2. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population Estimates by Category of Admission and State of Destination: FY 2015

State of destination

Total Temporary workers Students Exchange visitors

Diplomats and

other representatives

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total .............. 2,010,000 100% 930,000 100% 770,000 100% 230,000 100% 80,000 100%

California ............. 350,000 17% 160,000 17% 150,000 19% 30,000 15% 10,000 7%

New York ............. 250,000 12% 100,000 11% 100,000 13% 30,000 14% 20,000 23%

Texas ............... 170,000 8% 100,000 11% 50,000 6% 10,000 5% — — 

Florida ............... 110,000 6% 60,000 6% 40,000 5% 10,000 4% — — 

Massachusetts ........ 100,000 5% 30,000 3% 50,000 7% 20,000 8% — — 

Illinois ............... 90,000 4% 40,000 5% 40,000 5% 10,000 4% — — 

New Jersey ........... 80,000 4% 60,000 6% 20,000 2% 10,000 3% — — 

Washington ........... 70,000 3% 30,000 4% 30,000 3% — — — — 

Pennsylvania .......... 60,000 3% 20,000 2% 30,000 4% 10,000 3% — — 

Michigan ............. 60,000 3% 30,000 3% 20,000 3% 10,000 3% — — 

All others ............. 680,000 34% 290,000 31% 260,000 33% 90,000 40% 40,000 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.

 
4

Age and Sex

About 80 percent of all resident nonimmigrants were ages 18 to 

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

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

ages 25 to 44 (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 70 percent ages 18 to 34. Diplomats 

tended to be older, with nearly 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.

Table 3. 

Resident Nonimmigrant Population Estimates by Category of Admission, Age, and Sex: FY 2015

Characteristic

Total Temporary workers Students Exchange visitors

Diplomats and

other representatives

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Age group

Total .............. 2,010,000 100% 930,000 100% 770,000 100% 230,000 100% 80,000 100%

0–17 ................ 230,000 12% 110,000 12% 80,000 11% 30,000 12% 10,000 9%

18–24 ............... 620,000 31% 60,000 7% 460,000 60% 90,000 41% — — 

25–34 ............... 710,000 35% 420,000 45% 200,000 26% 70,000 31% 20,000 21%

35–44 ............... 290,000 14% 220,000 23% 20,000 3% 30,000 12% 20,000 28%

45–54 ............... 120,000 6% 90,000 9% 10,000 1% 10,000 3% 20,000 24%

55 and older .......... 50,000 2% 30,000 3% — — — — 10,000 13%

Sex and age group

Total .............. 2,010,000 930,000 770,000 230,000 80,000 

Male ................ 1,160,000 100% 580,000 100% 430,000 100% 110,000 100% 50,000 100%

0–17 ............... 120,000 10% 60,000 10% 50,000 11% 10,000 11% — — 

18–24 .............. 340,000 29% 40,000 7% 260,000 60% 40,000 36% — — 

25–34 .............. 400,000 34% 240,000 42% 110,000 26% 40,000 33% 10,000 20%

35–44 .............. 190,000 16% 150,000 26% 10,000 3% 20,000 14% 10,000 29%

45–54 .............. 80,000 7% 60,000 11% — — — — 10,000 25%

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

Female .............. 850,000 100% 360,000 100% 340,000 100% 120,000 100% 30,000 100%

0–17 ............... 110,000 13% 60,000 16% 40,000 11% 10,000 13% — — 

18–24 .............. 280,000 33% 20,000 6% 210,000 60% 50,000 45% — — 

25–34 .............. 310,000 36% 180,000 50% 90,000 25% 30,000 29% 10,000 23%

35–44 .............. 100,000 12% 70,000 19% 10,000 3% 10,000 10% 10,000 27%

45–54 .............. 40,000 4% 20,000 7% — — — — 10,000 21%

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

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 2006, 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 2015, 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 2006–2015, 

D(x) is the set of all dates in 2015 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 2 months or longer 

on average.9 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 

(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 

7 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 FY 

2015 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 

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

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 2006 to estimate the current population.

Data

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 resident nonimmigrant into 

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

entry.6,7 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. 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.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 departures in 2015 back to their 

associated arrival data, incorporating arrival records from 2006–

2015. Frequency tables were constructed for each class of 

admission and country of citizenship. Second, these frequency 

6 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. 

7 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.

8 Prior analysis found corresponding departure records for approximately 85% of all resident nonimmigrant arrival records over a 4-year period; the remaining 15 percent had not departed, departed 

without record, or departed without generating a matchable record. 
7

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 FY 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 Oct. 1, 2005 and September 30, 

2015 and a departure recorded between October 1, 2014 and 

September 30, 2015. 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 records10

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

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 (SEVIS) on the date of the query. IIE counts 

F-1 and J-1 (exchange visitor) enrollments at accredited 

10 State was missing from about 6 percent of the records. Country, age, or sex was missing from 

less than 0.5 percent. 

institutions of higher education 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 DHS 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reported that there were 1.2 

million nonimmigrants “studying in the United States” on student 

visas and 201,800 exchange visitors “in the United States” in 

November of 2015 (ICE, 2015). ICE also reported 157,265 student 

and exchange visitor dependents, but did not distinguish between the 

principal classes for those dependents. As the numbers reported by 

ICE are more than 60 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 IIE11 are survey estimates of academic 

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

visas.12 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.13

Further, not all exchange visitors are students, so a clear comparison is not possible. IIE reported about 975,000 million 

enrollments in the 2014/2015 academic year,14 compared to a 

DHS population estimate of about 775,000 students and 

1,000,000 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 Policy, Strategy, 

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, 2015. “SEVIS by the 

Numbers, General Summary Quarterly Review, November 2015,” 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

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

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

13 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.

14 Including about 120,000 former students engaged in OPT.