The $100K H-1B Fee Was Just Extended to 2027, and a Court Still Won't Let Anyone Collect It

Most compliance deadlines resolve into a single answer: the rule applies, or it doesn't. The $100,000 H-1B payment has stopped working that way. As of this month it is official federal policy through next September, it cannot legally be collected, and a second fee of similar size is moving through rulemaking behind it. For any employer that sponsors international talent, the question is no longer what the rule is, but how many versions of it to budget for.

Extended on Paper, Blocked in Court

On September 18, the White House signed a proclamation extending the 2025 restriction on H-1B entry until 12:00 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 21, 2027. Entry stays restricted unless the petition is accompanied by a $100,000 payment, with national interest exceptions left to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The extension landed on top of an unresolved lawsuit. A federal district court in Massachusetts vacated the fee on June 8, and on July 24 the First Circuit declined to stay that order, which means USCIS cannot assess the payment while the government's appeal continues. Fragomen notes that the status of fees employers already paid remains unclear.

The renewal does not resolve that conflict, it ignores it. As one immigration practice summarized, the payment "remains blocked by a federal court judgment, and the extension does not mention that judgment at all." USCIS says it is complying with the order while DHS considers next steps, and adds that if the order is later lifted, DHS still plans to collect. The government's opening brief in the First Circuit was filed September 3, so a ruling could flip the cost of a single hire in either direction with little warning.

What the Administration Says the Fee Already Did

The proclamation is unusually specific about why it was renewed. It states that large IT outsourcing firms reduced H-1B registrations by 92 percent, from 24,946 to 2,055, and that consular processing requests fell nearly 97 percent between fiscal years. It also reports that FY 2027 registrations shifted toward workers with U.S. master's degrees, whose share rose from 45.1% to 66.1%, and it cites recent college graduate unemployment of 5.7 percent in June 2026 as a reason the conditions behind the restriction persist.

Whatever one makes of that rationale, the numbers describe a sponsorship channel that has already narrowed sharply, and the policy is aimed at keeping it that way. The same day, the President also signed an executive order focused on employers that laid off U.S. workers while hiring H-1B employees. Klasko Immigration Law Partners advises employers to review every layoff from the past 12 months, and any planned reductions, with immigration counsel before filing new petitions.

The Second Fee Waiting Behind the First

The $100,000 payment is not the only number in play. DHS published a proposed rule on August 25 that would add a $103,265 fee on every cap-subject H-1B petition, including advanced degree cases, with an estimated $8.8 billion in annual revenue based on 85,000 cap-subject filings. Cap-exempt employers such as universities and nonprofit research organizations would not owe it. The comment period closed September 24, and the rule is not yet final.

The proposal describes the new fee as separate from the proclamation payment. If both become enforceable, a consular case could carry $203,265 in government charges before standard filing costs, while a change-of-status filing for someone already in the U.S. would face only the cap-subject fee. That gap matters most for workforce planning: where a candidate is sitting when the petition is filed could become one of the largest cost variables in the whole hire.

Four Scenarios, One Budget Cycle

Put together, HR and finance teams heading into the FY 2028 cap season face four possible cost outcomes: neither fee enforceable, only the $100,000 payment reinstated, only the $103,265 fee finalized, or both stacked together. Samper Law recommends modeling all four rather than betting on one, documenting filing dates and payment status while the court order stands, and keeping payment records in case a refund process ever appears.

The harder strategic question is what happens to the roles themselves. When government fees on a single sponsored hire could exceed $200,000, companies tend to split into three paths: sponsor selectively and absorb the cost, hire the role in the country where the candidate already lives, or rebuild the domestic pipeline. Each path needs a different owner. Sponsorship sits with immigration counsel, international hiring sits with whoever manages employer of record or entity decisions, and the domestic pipeline sits with talent acquisition. The employers that handle this best will have decided in advance which roles go down which path, instead of deciding one petition at a time.

• Reset your planning horizon to September 21, 2027. The proclamation now runs through the next cap season, so treat the $100,000 payment as a live risk in every sponsorship forecast, even while it is not being collected.
• Model all four fee scenarios. Build cost-per-hire estimates for no fee, the $100,000 payment, the proposed $103,265 fee, and both combined, and share them with finance before headcount plans lock.
• Prefer change-of-status filings where eligible. The proclamation attaches to entry, so candidates already in the U.S. avoid the consular payment, which changes how recruiters should prioritize pipelines.
• Audit layoffs before you file. Review reductions from the past 12 months and any planned ones with counsel, since the new executive order targets employers that cut U.S. workers while hiring on H-1Bs.
• Assign each hard-to-fill role a path. Decide now which roles justify sponsorship, which can be hired abroad through an international employment model, and which need a stronger domestic recruiting plan.
• Keep every payment and filing record. No refund mechanism has been announced for fees already paid, so dated records are the only leverage you will have if one is created.

The extension made one thing clear: the administration intends this cost to stay, and only the courts are standing in the way. HR cannot control which way the First Circuit rules, but it can make sure the answer, whenever it arrives, changes a spreadsheet rather than a hiring strategy.