In updated guidance released October 23, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services confirmed that the controversial US $100,000 supplemental fee imposed by President Trump’s “Restriction on Entry of Certain Non-Immigrant Workers” proclamation applies solely to H-1B petitions filed for beneficiaries *outside* the United States on or after September 21, 2025. Employers filing amendments, extensions or change-of-status requests for workers already in the country are exempt.
The clarification follows weeks of confusion that saw some petitioners pre-emptively attach surcharge checks, only to have filings rejected for over-payment. USCIS instructs filers to omit the fee for in-country cases and reminds them that under- or over-payment will result in rejection. If an in-country beneficiary later departs and applies for a visa at a consulate, no additional fee will be due.
Litigation challenging the fee’s legality is pending in the D.C. District Court and the Court of Federal Claims, with plaintiffs arguing that Congress did not authorize such a steep surcharge. While the courts deliberate, companies recruiting talent abroad must budget for the six-figure outlay—effectively quadrupling the cost of new H-1B hires when legal and filing fees are included—and weigh remote-first or near-shore staffing alternatives.
Immigration counsel recommend accelerating in-country transfers and extensions before any judicial ruling that might expand the fee’s scope. Employers should also update internal cost-sharing policies: because the surcharge is considered a business expense, passing it to employees could violate Department of Labor regulations. Global mobility managers are urged to brief finance teams on the significant cash-flow impact for FY 2026 hiring plans.
The clarification follows weeks of confusion that saw some petitioners pre-emptively attach surcharge checks, only to have filings rejected for over-payment. USCIS instructs filers to omit the fee for in-country cases and reminds them that under- or over-payment will result in rejection. If an in-country beneficiary later departs and applies for a visa at a consulate, no additional fee will be due.
Litigation challenging the fee’s legality is pending in the D.C. District Court and the Court of Federal Claims, with plaintiffs arguing that Congress did not authorize such a steep surcharge. While the courts deliberate, companies recruiting talent abroad must budget for the six-figure outlay—effectively quadrupling the cost of new H-1B hires when legal and filing fees are included—and weigh remote-first or near-shore staffing alternatives.
Immigration counsel recommend accelerating in-country transfers and extensions before any judicial ruling that might expand the fee’s scope. Employers should also update internal cost-sharing policies: because the surcharge is considered a business expense, passing it to employees could violate Department of Labor regulations. Global mobility managers are urged to brief finance teams on the significant cash-flow impact for FY 2026 hiring plans.
