SEVP Tightens CPT Scrutiny: New Guidance Targets Courses, Students, and Employers

On August 12, SEVP issued Broadcast Message 2608-01, reiterating that Curricular Practical Training (CPT) must be an integral and required part of an established curriculum. Just 12 days later, SEVP followed up with Broadcast Message 2608-02, providing more detail on how it will evaluate CPT programs—from course design and student participation to employer relationships and DSO approvals. 

The August 24 guidance does not eliminate Day 1 CPT. But it does make one thing clearer: SEVP is looking beyond whether a school approved CPT and asking whether the practical training is truly an academic requirement—or simply a way for international students to keep working. Programs built around “work from day one” may face greater scrutiny if they cannot show that the training is genuinely required, consistently applied to students in the same curriculum, and educational in substance. 

What Does the New Guidance Mean for Day 1 CPT?

As ILS explained in our earlier CPT update, SEVP’s August 12 guidance did not eliminate Day 1 CPT. The August 24 guidance does not change that conclusion. SEVP also expressly states that the new guidance is not a new rule or final agency action. 

But “not eliminated” does not mean every existing Day 1 CPT model is safe.

The new guidance gives SEVP more concrete factors to examine, including how the curriculum is structured, which students must complete practical training, how employers participate, and how DSOs make CPT authorization decisions.

That could create particular challenges for programs where students obtain CPT through optional courses, only international students actually complete the practical training, or CPT is structured primarily around a student’s existing employment. 

An Elective Course Does Not Automatically Support CPT

One of the clearest points in the new guidance concerns elective courses.

If an elective is optional, and students can also choose whether to participate in the practical training connected to that course, SEVP says the training cannot qualify as “integral and required” simply because it is included in the course. 

The key question is therefore not whether a student enrolled in a course that allows CPT. It is whether the practical training itself is required to complete the curriculum.

This distinction may be especially important for programs that offer internship or practicum courses as electives. If a student can skip the course, skip the training, and still complete the degree, the school may have a harder time showing that the CPT is truly an integral and required part of the curriculum. 

SEVP Is Looking at Whether U.S. Students Must Complete the Same Training

SEVP also makes clear that if practical training is truly required by a curriculum, that requirement generally should apply to all students in the curriculum—not just F-1 students who need CPT work authorization. 

SEVP says its audits and investigations have already identified programs where:

• CPT operates more like an optional training opportunity; or

• only some students are required to complete practical training, rather than everyone in the same curriculum. 

This raises a straightforward compliance question: Is practical training actually an academic requirement for the program, or does it become “required” only when an F-1 student needs work authorization? For many Day 1 CPT programs, that distinction could become increasingly important. 

Schools and CPT Employers Need a Real Working Relationship

The August 24 guidance also addresses the relationship between schools and CPT employers. SEVP highlights several elements of a compliant CPT arrangement:

• The school and CPT employer should have a cooperative agreement;

• The employer should be a legitimate business capable of providing meaningful practical training; and

• The training should be directly related to the student’s major field of study. 

For employers hiring CPT students, this means the analysis should not necessarily stop at confirming that an employee has a valid CPT-endorsed Form I-20. Employers should also pay attention to any cooperation required by the school and make sure the actual position and training match the CPT arrangement approved by the school. 

SEVP Is Also Looking More Closely at DSO Approvals

The new guidance sends another notable signal regarding Designated School Officials (DSOs). SEVP states that DSOs who are directed or pressured by school management to make CPT decisions they believe may violate the rules can report those concerns through a confidential SEVP tipline. Matters may also be referred to Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). 

This matters because SEVP is not only looking at individual CPT approvals. It is also paying attention to whether schools have internal practices that encourage or pressure DSOs to approve CPT based on enrollment, revenue, or students’ employment needs rather than academic requirements. 

What Does This Mean for Employers?

Our previous CPT update covered work authorization, document retention, and longer-term immigration planning. The August 24 guidance adds two practical considerations for employers. 

1. Pay attention to the school’s role in the CPT arrangement. If a school asks the employer to sign a cooperative agreement, internship agreement, or other training document, make sure the job duties, training, and work arrangement described in those documents match what the employee will actually be doing.

2. Make sure the actual job matches the CPT authorization. Employers are not responsible for determining whether a school’s curriculum or CPT program complies with SEVP rules. But they should not assume that a valid Form I-20 ends the compliance inquiry. Significant differences between the approved CPT arrangement and the employee’s actual work could create additional work authorization and immigration risks.

The takeaway for employers is relatively simple: you do not need to audit the school’s CPT program, but your side of the arrangement should match what the school approved. 

Conclusion

Taken together, SEVP’s August 12 and August 24 guidance shows a shift from broad reminders about CPT compliance to specific aspects of CPT programs that can actually be reviewed in an audit or investigation. 

Day 1 CPT remains available under the existing regulatory framework. But programs built primarily around continued employment—with optional training, requirements that apply mainly to F-1 students, or limited employer involvement and academic oversight—may have a much harder time showing that the training is truly an “integral and required” part of the curriculum. 

ILS will continue monitoring SEVP developments involving CPT, Day 1 CPT, and F-1 employment compliance. For questions about hiring CPT employees, work authorization, or employer immigration compliance, please contact the ILS Immigration Team at immigrationlaw@consultils.com.

Disclaimer: Given the rapid changes in immigration policies, it is advisable for enterprises to pay close attention to official updates and consult professional immigration lawyers for the latest guidance. Our firm will continue to track policy developments and provide clients with timely and accurate professional services.

---

As Partner and Head of Immigration at ILS, Anna advises global employers on all aspects of U.S. business immigration. She helps companies recruit and retain executives and highly skilled professionals essential to their U.S. operations, with experience spanning industries from autonomous driving and biotech, to entertainment, logistics, and manufacturing.

Previously, Anna practiced at leading global law firms and served as in-house counsel and compliance manager in the telecommunications, finance, and gaming industries. This diverse background equips her with practical, cross-industry insights that inform strategic, business-focused immigration solutions.

Email: contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949

Melody focuses her practice on U.S. immigration law, advising businesses, investors, and individuals on business immigration, family-based petitions, removal defense, and federal mandamus actions involving immigration delays. Licensed in Georgia, she provides practical counsel in complex immigration matters.

Her business immigration practice includes L-1A, L-1B, E-2, and EB-1C matters for executives, managers, specialized knowledge employees, and investors. She also represents individuals and families in adjustment of status, consular processing, family-based petitions, waivers of inadmissibility, VAWA and U visa matters, religious worker visas, and naturalization applications.

Email: contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949