November 14, 2026
The State Department has taken great strides to implement much needed reforms to the congressionally mandated Diversity Visa (DV) process. Unfortunately, the Department’s efforts have been hampered by judges, specifically those with a penchant for usurping executive authority. In a remarkable display of judicial arrogance, Judge Jinsook Ohta issued an injunction against the State Department, transforming a federal district court into a helicopter parent over the process. Her October 14th order requires the Department to announce Diversity Visa registration by October 29, open the lottery by November 1 for a period no shorter than 30 days, notify selectees by December 3, and process applications through the entirety of FY2027. The government appealed the injunction on October 19th, and litigation will continue. While the Department may eventually prevail, it should also prepare an alternative course of action. If judicial intervention prevents the Department from temporarily suspending the DV program to implement comprehensive reforms, it should instead exercise its existing authority under immigration law to rigorously enforce the program's educational requirements, denying visas to applicants who cannot demonstrate an education equivalent to a United States high school diploma.
The regulations for the Diversity Visa program, codified in 22 CFR § 42.33(a)(2), allow for DV applicants to qualify for a visa through either education or work experience. To satisfy the education requirement, an applicant must show “successful completion in another country of a formal course of elementary and secondary education comparable to completion of a 12-year education in the United States”. However, throughout the DV program’s history, Consular Officers have largely turned a blind eye to the substandard nature of many countries’ educational systems. This means that anyone who presents their country’s equivalent of a high school diploma is given a visa without due consideration of whether or not this secondary education truly meets the legal standard.
The Foreign Affairs manual instructs Consular Officers to review educational qualifications of DV applicants, but gives few guidelines on how Officers are supposed to arrive at such a decision. Below are the instructions given to Officers on how to judge if an applicant meets the basic educational requirements – note that nowhere do the instructions indicate how an Officer is supposed to ascertain if a country’s educational system is roughly equivalent to the United States.
(U) Education Requirements: “At least a high school education or its equivalent” in this context applies only to formal courses of study. Equivalency certificates (such as the G.E.D.) are not acceptable. To qualify, an applicant must have completed a 12-year course of elementary and secondary education in the United States or a comparable course of study in another country. Evidence might consist of a certificate of completion equivalent to a United States diploma, school transcripts, or other evidence issued by the person or organization responsible for maintaining such records, which specify the completed course of study.
(U) Education Evaluation: The burden of proving that an applicant's education is equivalent to a high school degree is entirely on the applicant. If the applicant does not satisfy you that the applicant's education is equivalent to a high school degree, but you believe additional evidence could meet the applicant's burden, the appropriate basis for refusal is INA 221(g). You may request the applicant to provide additional information. If the applicant is unable to credibly prove the education equivalency requirement to your satisfaction, the appropriate basis for refusal is INA 203(c).
One area that warrants closer examination by the Department is whether applicants possess a high school diploma from a country with an 11-year system of primary and secondary education should qualify for the DV program. Several countries with such systems, including Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, account for more than 16 percent of DV-2026 selectees. Although these countries consider 11 years sufficient to complete secondary education, the INA specifically refers to the United States’ 12-year program as the benchmark. This discrepancy raises questions about whether the Department's guidance is consistent with the INA’s requirement that the education be “comparable”. However, the length of the program is not the only measure, nor is it the most important measure that should be considered. One of the most important measures of a country’s education system is the students’ scholastic achievement.
In order to create a fair and objective standard for DV applicants, the State Department should create country-specific guidance on whether the possession of a high school diploma by itself is sufficient evidence of educational attainment. In doing so, it need not reinvent the wheel, as there is already a wealth of data on global student achievement at the secondary level. Perhaps one of the best yardsticks for comparing one educational system against another is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s triennial international student assessment, which tests students in nearly 100 countries in mathematics, reading, and science. If one sets a “comparable” score at 90 percent of the U.S. educational system’s score, roughly thirty-five would be considered to have a secondary education on par with the United States. Another potential yardstick is the World Bank’s Harmonized Learning Outcomes study, which combines international and regional assessments into comparable reading, mathematics, and science scores and covers approximately 98 percent of the world’s population (although the underlying data only covers from 2000 to 2017). Using the same 90 percent rule, forty-two countries would qualify.
Regardless of the methodology the Department employs, applicants who fail to satisfy the DV program’s educational requirements and cannot qualify through work experience must be denied a visa. A visa refusal, unlike many other actions that the Executive Branch may take, is not subject to judicial review. The Department should therefore issue more robust guidance directing Consular Officers to scrutinize educational credentials and refuse visas when applicants cannot establish the requisite educational equivalency. Doing so will increase the quality of Diversity Visa recipients, strengthen Department control over the DV process, and reduce the burden on public resources.
