Why the $103,265 H-1B Fee Increase Isn't in Effect Yet

Last verified: Aug. 26, 2026, UTC. Legal-background review: Lina Ortega, J.D., for legal-background framing only. This rule-summary record is general information, not legal advice; employers should have counsel check the Federal Register text, agency guidance, and the posture of any court orders before changing a filing or budget decision.

Status first: the $103,265 DHS H-1B visa fee increase is not in effect as of Aug. 26, 2026. DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking, “Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions,” on Aug. 25, 2026, at 91 FR 54817, Docket No. USCIS-2026-0298. Comments are due on or before Sept. 24, 2026. There is no final rule and no effective date yet. [1]

The shortest correct answer to “DHS H-1B visa fee increase explained” is this: DHS has proposed an additional $103,265 charge for each H-1B cap-subject petition, including petitions counted under the 20,000 advanced-degree exemption, and it proposes to charge that amount on top of existing filing fees. That sentence still has two important qualifiers: proposed, and cap-subject. [1]

Primary sources checked for this version are the Federal Register NPRM, the USCIS news release, the USCIS H-1B FAQ on the separate $100,000 proclamation payment, and the archived USCIS 2024 fee-rule FAQ for current baseline filing fees. [1][2][3][4]

This page is the site’s rule explainer for what the NPRM says. For petition-trigger questions about current H-1B workers, extensions, amendments, transfers, and who is actually tied to a new cap filing, use the separate eligibility record: Would the $103,265 H-1B fee apply to current visa holders?.

What DHS proposed to charge

The proposed rule would add a $103,265 fee to every H-1B petition that is subject to the numerical cap. DHS states that “cap-subject” includes petitions for the regular H-1B cap and petitions covered by the additional 20,000 places for beneficiaries with qualifying U.S. advanced degrees. [1]

That is the filing consequence that matters for employers. The NPRM is not framed as a new registration fee, a wage rule, or a charge only on eventual visa issuance. It is proposed as an additional fee attached to the filing of certain H-1B petitions.

USCIS’s announcement describes the excluded side of the line: cap-exempt H-1B petitions filed by institutions of higher education, nonprofit research organizations, and governmental research organizations are outside the proposed fee. [2]

The NPRM’s structure makes a budget shortcut dangerous. “H-1B employer” is not the same category as “petitioner that would owe this proposed fee.” A cap-exempt university filing for a qualifying role is in a different posture from a private employer filing into the cap, and the 20,000 advanced-degree exemption is still treated as cap-subject for this proposal. [1][2]

The $103,265 figure is DHS arithmetic, not an amount currently due

DHS derives the $103,265 figure by taking about $8.78 billion in projected annual immigration-system costs and dividing it by an estimated 85,000 cap-subject H-1B petitions. The 85,000 petition volume and the $8.78 billion cost figure are DHS projections, drawn in the NPRM from USCIS OPQ databases and the agency’s cost-allocation approach; they are not findings about what future filing behavior will actually be after such a fee. [1]

The unusual part is not only the size of the number. It is what DHS proposes to recover through it. The NPRM does not confine the projected costs to USCIS adjudication work. It spreads costs across several immigration-related components and agencies. [1]

Practitioner alerts have described the same basic fee math and allocation, but the Federal Register notice remains the controlling source for what DHS actually proposed. [1][5]

Existing filing fees would not go away

The proposed $103,265 charge is additional. DHS states that it would be paid on top of all existing fees, not instead of them. [1]

For scale, USCIS’s archived 2024 fee-rule FAQ lists the Form I-129 base fee for H-1B petitions at $780, the Asylum Program Fee at $600 for covered employers, and the H-1B registration fee at $215. Against that $780 base I-129 fee, the proposed $103,265 amount is roughly a 130-fold increase. [4]

That comparison is useful for magnitude only. It does not mean the NPRM has legal effect, and it does not answer whether an employer’s particular filing is cap-subject, cap-exempt, or outside the proposal for some other reason. Those are filing-status questions, not headline questions.

How this differs from the vacated $100,000 proclamation payment

The $103,265 NPRM is separate from the earlier $100,000 H-1B proclamation payment. The distinction is not cosmetic: one is a proposed regulation in notice-and-comment rulemaking; the other is a proclamation-based payment that has already been vacated in federal district court and is not currently collectable while the government pursues appellate review. USCIS identifies the current case caption as State of California v. Mullin, 1:25-cv-13829, in the District of Massachusetts. [3]

For the proclamation-payment timeline and the separate D. Mass./D.D.C. litigation split, see the site’s court-status records: What Remains of Trump’s H-1B Fee After the Court Defeat? and Why the $100K H-1B Fee Lost in Massachusetts But Survived in D.C..

As reflected in USCIS’s FAQ, the $100,000 proclamation payment is vacated and currently uncollectable pending the First Circuit’s merits review, with a decision expected in 2027. USCIS says it “strongly disagrees” with the stay denial and “still plans to collect the payment” if the order is later lifted. The proclamation itself expires Sept. 21, 2026, unless extended. [3]

The NPRM nevertheless tries to preserve both charges. DHS states in the proposed rule that if a petitioner were subject to both the proclamation payment and the NPRM fee, the petitioner “would be required to pay both amounts.” That is DHS’s position in a proposal. It is not a final rule, not a court ruling, and not proof that both amounts could lawfully be collected in the same case. [1]

This is the point most likely to be misstated in a budget slide. A petitioner does not owe the NPRM fee today. A petitioner also does not owe the vacated proclamation payment today while the court order remains in place. DHS’s stated intention to collect later if allowed is an agency litigation position, not present collectability.

The legal fight is about fee authority, not just price

DHS can present the $103,265 number as cost recovery, and the division problem is straightforward enough: projected costs divided by projected cap-subject petition volume. The harder question is whether the agency may lawfully allocate that mix of interagency immigration-system costs to this class of H-1B petitioners through a fee rule. That is where the NPRM enters the same fee-authority territory that already defeated the proclamation payment in Massachusetts.

The NPRM also includes a Regulatory Flexibility Act small-entity analysis, which matters because many cap-subject H-1B petitioners are not large technology employers. But the existence of an RFA analysis does not resolve the underlying authority question or the likely challenges to the agency’s cost allocation. [1]

Policy objections are already being framed around filing behavior and revenue consequences. David Bier of the Cato Institute, quoted by The Hill, estimated that the proposal could reduce filings by roughly 90 percent and argued that it could result in a $28 million revenue loss. Those are advocacy estimates, not DHS findings and not court findings. [6]

Employers tracking parallel H-1B rulemaking should also keep this NPRM separate from DHS proposals affecting the H-1B grace period. Those are different rules with different filing consequences. See the site’s records on the H-1B 60-day grace period elimination proposal and the broader DHS H-1B grace-period proposal.

What to tell finance or recruiting today

A same-day answer can be precise without pretending the case is settled:

• Do not budget as though the $103,265 NPRM fee is currently collectable. It is proposed only.
• Check whether the contemplated filing is cap-subject. The proposal is aimed at cap-subject petitions, including the 20,000 advanced-degree exemption.
• Do not assume all H-1B petitioners are covered. USCIS describes cap-exempt petitions by higher-education institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and governmental research organizations as excluded.
• Treat the $100,000 proclamation payment separately. It is vacated and not currently collectable, even though USCIS says it plans to collect if the order is lifted.
• Track the Sept. 24, 2026 comment deadline, the final-rule process, and the First Circuit appeal before converting the proposal into a filing-cost assumption.

The practical judgment is narrow but important: the $103,265 figure is a proposed cost-recovery calculation, not a fee due today. Counsel should still track it closely because the NPRM is built to test the same fee-authority boundary that made the earlier $100,000 proclamation payment uncollectable in Massachusetts.

References

1. Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions, Federal Register, Aug. 25, 2026.
2. DHS Proposes Additional H-1B Fee, USCIS.
3. H-1B FAQ, USCIS.
4. Frequently Asked Questions on the USCIS Fee Rule, USCIS.
5. DHS Proposes Permanent $100,000 Fee for H-1B Cap-Subject Petitions, Envoy Global.
6. New H-1B visa cost proposal, The Hill.