Trump Administration Introduced new $103,265 H-1B Fee and Plans Revocation of B1/B2 Visas for Asylum Seekers

In a dual effort to further tighten immigration pathways, the Trump administration has proposed a regulation mandating a $103,265 fee for H-1B visas, while simultaneously preparing for a massive visa revocation initiative targeting asylum seekers.

A Revived and Expanded H-1B Fee

On August 24, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a new regulation that would increase the cost of obtaining an H-1B visa by imposing a $103,265 fee.

This action follows severe legal setbacks for the administration's initial attempt to price-out tech and research employers. In September 2025, an executive order imposed a $100,000 fee on H-1B petitions requiring consular processing. However, on June 8, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled the fee to be an unlawful tax imposed without Congressional authorization. In July 2026, an appeals court formally denied the federal government's request to resume collecting the fee while their appeal proceeds.

In response, the newly drafted DHS regulation not only brings the fee back at a higher rate but drastically expands its scope. Under the new proposal, the $103,265 fee would apply to all H-1B workers subject to the annual statutory cap—including those with master's degrees and those already in the U.S. who were selected in the visa lottery.

The Administration explained that the additional fees will be used to cover costs for processing immigration applications and funding the EOIR (Immigration Courts), the law enforcement work of ICE and CBP, overseas consulates' operations, etc.  The question is whether it is fair for the U.S. employers of technical workers to pay for these unrelated operations and programs. Currently, employers are already paying extra fees for anti-fraud operations, retraining and reeducation of American workers, and also the Asylum Program.

The proposal initiates a 30-day public comment period and is widely expected to face immediate litigation from business groups and other affected parties, who argue the program is critical for recruiting top global talent.

Mass Revocation of B1 and B2 Visas

Separately, the administration is preparing to cancel the business (B1) and tourism (B2) visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are currently seeking asylum in the United States.    The effort targets visas issued between 2016 and 2026.  According to the State Department, the initiative targets "bogus" asylum claims. There are more than 3 million asylum applications pending in the United States now.

The revocations will be done on a rolling basis.  Hence, holders of B1/B2 visas may not receive any notifications immediately.  The administration noted that stripping individuals of their B1/B2 statuses will not automatically trigger immediate deportations. .  Instead, most individuals with pending asylum cases will be losing their tourist or business status while their asylum claims proceed.  They are only authorized to stay while their asylum claim is pending. If their asylum application is rejected, they are subject to deportation.

(Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)  

August 2026 ICE Broadcast on CPT: Enforcement, Impact, and Practical Realities

On August 12, 2026, ICE issued a critical Broadcast Message (BCM Number: 2608-01) through the SEVP system reminding Designated School Officials (DSOs) of their legal responsibilities and personal liability regarding Curricular Practical Training (CPT) authorizations.  This broadcast represents an aggressive enforcement push designed to curb perceived abuses with a chilling effect on CPT employment.

The Broadcast Key Message: Strict Enforcement on CPT Authorizations

The core purpose of the broadcast is to target CPT authorizations that fail to meet existing regulatory requirements—specifically instances where training does not constitute an "integral part of an established curriculum".

To address this, SEVP is clamping down with a very narrow interpretation of what makes practical training "integral". According to the message, DSOs should only authorize CPT employment "if its absence would make the attainment of a degree an impossibility." The broadcast mandates that the work associated with the CPT must be "required for all students pursuing that degree". CPT cannot be granted purely for employment purposes or for optional practical experiences that are not formally mandated by the academic program.

Furthermore, the broadcast reinforces the legal stakes for both institutions and individuals. F-1 students are reminded that they attest under penalty of perjury to be in the United States solely for full-time study. When a DSO signs or re-signs a Form I-20 to grant CPT, they are likewise certifying under penalty of perjury that the training is a required, integral component of the curriculum. If SEVP suspects that a school is misusing CPT to facilitate work opportunities rather than genuine study, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) may intervene, potentially leading to administrative penalties, legal consequences, or the complete withdrawal of the school's SEVP certification.

The Impact Across the International Student Ecosystem

The ripple effects of this heightened enforcement will touch every level of international higher education, transforming how students, universities, and compliance officers approach off-campus work.

• F-1 International Students

For international students, obtaining off-campus internship authorization will become significantly more difficult. Career-building opportunities, summer internships, and part-time professional roles that were previously authorized under broader interpretations of "curricular training" will no longer qualify unless they are explicit graduation requirements for everyone in the major. Students will need to demonstrate that their degree literally cannot be completed without the practical training component.

• SEVP-Certified Academic Institutions

Universities and colleges now face immense institutional and operational risk. While SEVP acknowledges that academic institutions retain the authority to define their own degree requirements, federal oversight will aggressively target schools suspected of structuring curricula simply to offer work authorization. Institutions are being forced to conduct immediate, comprehensive audits of their academic programs across all departments to ensure that CPT offerings strictly align with federal expectations. Furthermore, with SEVP encouraging the public, employers, and students to report suspected training fraud directly to HSI, schools face increased exposure to whistleblowers and external scrutiny.

• Designated School Officials (DSOs)

DSOs find themselves directly in the regulatory focus. Because signing a Form I-20 carries the weight of a legal attestation under penalty of perjury, DSOs face personal administrative and legal liability if an authorization is deemed improper. To mitigate this risk, DSOs must now maintain exhaustive evidentiary documentation supporting the curricular necessity of every single CPT request, frequently consulting with SEVP field representatives on edge cases to protect themselves and their institutions.

Conclusion: The Broader Fallout

While the broadcast explicitly states that it is not a formal rule change or a substitute for statutory requirements, its practical fallout will be immediate and far-reaching.

First, the message transmits an immediate chilling effect across the entire CPT program. Driven by the threat of personal perjury charges, institutional loss of SEVP certification, and HSI investigations, DSOs and university administrators will inevitably adopt an extremely risk-averse posture. Many institutions will likely suspend discretionary CPT options or decline requests that fall into any legal gray area, restricting authorization strictly to traditional, fully mandatory cooperative education programs. Popular programs such as "Day-1 CPTs" will likely be severely curtailed or completely eliminated. 

Second, this enforcement mandate will disrupt currently approved CPT employment. As schools scramble to implement the directives—specifically reviewing current academic requirements and re-evaluating existing authorizations—many DSOs may be forced to retroactively revoke or shorten active CPT approvals that do not meet the strict "degree impossibility" standard. Consequently, international students currently working in good faith could see their employment authorizations abruptly halted, leaving both students and host employers navigating sudden operational and compliance disruptions.

(Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)  

 

Incomplete Immigration Applications Now Face Immediate Denial

Effective immediately as of August 5, 2026 (under Policy Alert PA-2026-05), USCIS has restored full discretion to its adjudicators to deny immigration benefit requests without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). If your application is missing required initial evidence or fails to establish eligibility right out of the gate, officers can now reject it outright.

The End of the "Safety Net"

Previously, under Biden-era guidance, USCIS officers were generally instructed to issue an RFE or NOID if additional evidence could potentially demonstrate an applicant's eligibility. This served as a safety net, giving applicants a chance to fix a weak or incomplete filing before receiving a final decision.

Under the new August 2026 policy, that safety net is gone. Officers now have three options when reviewing a deficient filing:

• Deny the application for lack of required initial evidence.
• Deny the application because the record does not establish eligibility on its face.
• Issue an RFE or NOID (which is now completely at the officer's discretion, rather than the expectation).

Tighter Deadlines for RFEs and NOIDs

Even if an officer graciously decides to issue an RFE or NOID, the clock is ticking faster than before. The new policy introduces strictly curtailed response times.

Policy Area	Previous Policy (Pre-August 2026)	New Policy (Post-August 2026)
Incomplete Filings	Officers generally issued an RFE/NOID to allow applicants to cure deficiencies.	Officers have full discretion to deny outright without warning.
RFE Deadlines	12 weeks was generally the default response period.	12 weeks is now the absolute ceiling, not the default.
NOID Deadlines	30 days, plus an additional 14 days for international mailing.	Strictly capped at 30 days; the 14-day international allowance is eliminated.

Why Did USCIS Make This Change?

USCIS argues that the previous lenient approach encouraged "placeholder" or frivolous filings, which bogged down the system and increased processing times for everyone else. By allowing applicants to submit bare-bones applications, some individuals were able to improperly secure ancillary benefits—like employment authorization documents (EADs)—while their incomplete primary case sat in the backlog. However, while the policy aims to deter a small percentage of legally insufficient filings, it ultimately places all cases under the adjudicator's broad discretionary authority to deny incomplete applications.

Who is Most at Risk?

While this affects all benefit requests, certain demographics need to be hyper-vigilant:

• Laid-off H-1B Workers: Those trying to bridge their 60-day grace period by filing a Form I-539 for B-1/B-2 visitor status must clearly establish their temporary intent. Shaky or incomplete applications that might have previously triggered an RFE could now be immediately denied.
• F-1 Students & OPT Applicants: Strict adherence to document checklists is more critical than ever.

Additional Update: New DNA Testing Guidance

In a concurrent update released on the exact same day (Policy Alert PA-2026-06), USCIS also tightened its protocols regarding family-based applications.

When a benefit requestor fails to meet their burden to establish a claimed genetic relationship and additional evidence is needed, USCIS officers are now required to suggest Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing as an optional form of evidence. This applies in cases where primary evidence is deemed unavailable, unreliable, or insufficient.

This specific update is designed to align with Section 9 of Executive Order 14165, Securing Our Borders, utilizing modern technology to verify familial relationships and superseding older, inconsistent guidance across different USCIS directorates.

The Takeaway: Get It Right the First Time

The era of submitting a partial application and waiting for USCIS to tell you what is missing is officially over. You should double- and triple-check every question and item in the application against USCIS regulations to ensure complete compliance. When in doubt, consult with a qualified immigration attorney to ensure your petition is airtight on day one.

(Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)