The Department of Homeland Security has proposed a $103,265 fee for H-1B visa applications, raising concerns about its impact on high-skilled immigration and American employers.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced a proposed administrative rule that would impose a staggering $103,265 fee on all H-1B visa applications subject to the annual statutory cap. This initiative aims to cover interagency immigration enforcement and adjudication costs and follows a federal court’s rejection of a previous attempt to implement a $100,000 fee, which was deemed unconstitutional. While the new proposal exempts higher education institutions and non-profit research organizations, experts warn that this significant financial burden could severely disrupt high-skilled immigration and impose substantial strains on American employers.
On Tuesday, DHS published the proposed rule in the Federal Register, initiating a mandatory 30-day public comment period. This regulatory move marks a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to reshape the economic landscape of the high-skilled foreign labor market.
DHS officials assert that the proposed fee is intended solely as a cost-recovery mechanism. According to the notice, the revenue generated from petitioning employers would be distributed across various federal agencies, including the DHS, Department of Justice, Department of State, and Department of Labor, to cover operational, vetting, and administrative expenses.
“The proposed H-1B fee is intended to recover the costs incurred across the federal government to adjudicate, vet, and support lawful immigration programs that otherwise must be funded by taxpayers,” stated Zach Kahler, a spokesperson for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in an official statement accompanying the draft rule.
If finalized, DHS estimates that the $103,265 fee could generate approximately $8.8 billion annually, based on the baseline quota of 85,000 cap-subject petitions processed each fiscal year.
The proposed rule comes in the wake of a significant legal setback for the administration. In June 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin vacated a prior executive effort that sought to impose a $100,000 fee on H-1B worker applications. The court ruled that the executive branch had overstepped its statutory authority, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to enact taxes and establish overarching immigration policies.
To navigate the constitutional challenges identified by the judiciary, administration officials have restructured the policy from a direct presidential mandate into a formal administrative agency rule, adhering to standard administrative procedures. The revised proposal also narrows its focus; while the previous measure included non-profit medical centers and universities, the current proposal explicitly exempts cap-exempt employers, placing the financial burden solely on commercial and corporate applicants.
David Bier, Director of Immigration Studies at the nonpartisan Cato Institute, expressed skepticism regarding the administration’s revised justification for the fee. He pointed out that the sheer magnitude of the proposed fee undermines its characterization as a routine cost-recovery tool.
“The administration claims the new fee will be a ‘cost recovery mechanism,’ even though the first fee led to a nearly 90 percent reduction in filings and a $28 million loss in revenue,” Bier noted. “The government itself told the court that the $100,000 fee was ‘arguably prohibitive’ and ‘does not raise revenue.’ Even if it did raise revenue, that would not make it legal because immigration fees can only be imposed to recover the costs of adjudication and naturalization services. And because this is a filing fee, employers would have to pay it with no guarantee that USCIS will approve the petition. Almost no one will risk more than $100,000 with no guarantee of approval.”
The H-1B nonimmigrant visa program is capped at 85,000 new visas annually, consisting of a standard cap of 65,000 visas for general applicants and an additional 20,000 reserved for individuals with a master’s degree or doctorate from an accredited U.S. institution. Additionally, 6,800 visas are allocated specifically for trade agreements with Chile and Singapore.
Over the past three decades, the H-1B visa has become the primary mechanism for U.S. companies to recruit international talent in specialized fields such as technology, engineering, and science. Data from the Bipartisan Policy Center indicates that computer-related occupations account for nearly 65% of all approved initial and continuing H-1B petitions.
Currently, standard government filing fees for an H-1B application range from $2,000 to $5,000 per worker, depending on the size of the company and expedited processing options. The proposed rule represents an increase of approximately 2,000% to 5,000% in costs for applicants.
Employers face significant financial risks, as the $103,265 fee would be due upfront upon initial petition submission. This means that corporate sponsors could incur total losses if an application is selected in the lottery but ultimately denied during the final adjudication process.
Industry trade groups representing technology and software manufacturers have expressed concerns that small and mid-sized enterprises would be disproportionately affected. While larger multinational corporations may have the financial resources to absorb such administrative costs, early-stage startups and specialized regional IT providers could find themselves priced out of the international recruiting market.
The publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register opens a 30-day window for commercial entities, educational institutions, labor organizations, and individuals to submit formal public comments. Following this period, DHS officials are legally required to consider the feedback before drafting a final operational rule. Given the significant economic implications, trade organizations and immigration advocacy groups are expected to pursue legal action immediately upon the publication of any finalized directive, according to Source Name.