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.)  

Submission of Asylum Applications After Termination of Removal Proceedings

 

On 10/13/2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued new instructions regarding submission of asylum applications by individuals after dismissal or termination of removal proceedings by Immigration Court/EOIR: 

Effective Oct. 16, 2023, if EOIR dismissed or terminated your removal proceedings and you choose to pursue a claim for asylum, you must submit a current version of Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, to the USCIS lockbox that has jurisdiction over your place of residence. If you had a pending asylum application when EOIR dismissed or terminated your removal proceedings, you should include in your submission any additional or updated information regarding your claim for asylum. We also recommend that you submit proof demonstrating that: EOIR dismissed or terminated your removal proceedings, such as a copy of the EOIR Order of Dismissal or Termination; and You had a Form I-589 pending with EOIR when your removal proceedings were dismissed or terminated. If the evidence establishes that you filed Form I-589 before the date when EOIR dismissed or terminated your removal proceedings, we will issue a receipt notice with your original Form I-589 filing date. This is the date we will use for purposes of the one-year filing deadline, employment authorization eligibility based on a pending asylum application, asylum interview scheduling priority, and age determinations for child dependent applicants. If you did not file Form I-589 before the date when EOIR dismissed or terminated your removal proceedings, we will issue a receipt notice with your current Form I-589 filing date. If you originally filed an asylum application with USCIS (known as an affirmative asylum application), and we referred, forwarded, or transferred your asylum application to immigration court where it remained pending until the removal proceedings were dismissed or terminated, we intend to issue a new discretionary Notice to Appear to send your application back to EOIR if you file a new asylum application. (Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)

Affirmative Asylum Applicants Must Bring Interpreters to Inteview

Starting 9/13/2023, affirmative asylum applicants must bring their own interpreters to asylum interviews, if they are not fluent in English or prefer to conduct the interview in a language other than English.

Since 2020 and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, USCIS has required asylum applicants to use contract telephonic interpreters arranged by USCIS for health and safety reasons. This policy has ended today, and an asylum applicant must bring their own interpreters if they need to use one.

USCIS warns that failure to bring one's interpreter may result in denial of the asylum application, as the USCIS would not be able to proceed with the interview.

Asylum applicants are allowed to bring an adult friend or family member to act as the interpreter. However, the following individuals cannot server as an interpreter:

• The attorney or accredited representative of the case;
• A witness testifying on your behalf of the applicant;
• A representative or employee of the government of your country of nationality (or, if you are stateless, your country of last habitual residence); or
• An individual with a pending asylum application who has not yet been interviewed.

Further, asylum applicants must make sure that interpreters that they use are competent.  Oftentimes, friends and family members may know English but are not qualified to act as interpreters.  A competent interpreter must be fluent in both English and the language to be translated. USCIS may consider incompetent interpretation as failure to appear for the interview, which may result in the denial of the asylum application.

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

Credible Testimoney and Evidence is key to Asylum Claims

 

Tens of thousands of individuals come to the U.S. every year to apply for protection based on persecution in their home countries.  On average, only about 30 to 40% of applications are granted, depending on the existing government policies.  One of the most common reasons that applications for political asylum are denied is lack of credibility. 

Credibility is important for a few reasons.  First, most asylum applicants are not able to provide substantial documentary evidence to support their claim.  When a person is genuinely escaping from persecution, it is unlikely that this person would have an opportunity to collect an abundance of documents.  Further, persecutors are also unlikely to cooperate with the applicant by releasing inculpatory evidence. Finally, if an asylum applicant's account of his experience is not credible, there is no sound basis to assess the claim at all.  If an applicant's account of one event is not believable, one may conclude that his or her whole story is not credible.  

However, in some cases, credibility is difficult to ascertain due to cultural differences, discrepancies in translation, and also improper or insufficient case preparation.

For example, in a recent Ninth Circuit Court case (Dong v. Garland, 10/19/22), the Court affirmed the findings of the Immigration Judge (IJ) regarding credibility.  The applicant filed a claim based on religious persecution.  In his written statement, he mentioned that he was interrogated once during a detention by the government.  However, he testified in court that he was interrogated twice.  The IJ also found his demeanor suspicious. He waited ten seconds before answering the question about this omission, and he also changed his explanation.  Another inconsistency regards his injuries.  While his written statement mentions that he suffered “pain” from beating by police, in court he testified that he sustained injuries on his chest.  When asked why he didn't seek medical treatment, he said that the police did not allow him to.  The IJ pressed further and asked him whether the police told him not to tell others about the beating or not to seek medical treatment. He testified that he was not allowed to tell others about the beating. The IJ concluded that his testimony regarding medical treatment was less than candid.  Finally, Dong presented a copy of his household registration and testified that his mother presented the original to the local notary after he left.  Because the household registration listed his name rather than his mother's name, the IJ again made a negative credibility finding.

Although there is no way for us to know whether Dong was telling the truth, we can, however, understand how these inconsistencies can be explained. For example, the preparer of his application might have failed to confirm all the facts with Dong properly, and neglected to put down the first interrogation in the written statement.  When he said he suffered pain in the statement, it does not mean that he did not sustain injuries.  Each person's tolerance of pain is different.  Further, when he said that the police did not allow him to disclose the beating, rather than to seek medical treatment, there is no direct contradiction.  If Dong were to seek medical treatment, the doctors would certainly ask him how he sustained his injuries, and he would not be able to provide a plausible explanation without disclosing the beating.  Regarding the house registration, it is commonly known that one may ask his/her family members to make such requests about civil documents on his or her behalf in many countries.  

Credibility is key to a successful asylum claim in the U.S. legal system.  Many asylum applicants are frivolous, and not based on truth and real events.  However, even for applicants who have a true story to tell, this case illustrates the importance of presenting a credible claim.  To present a credible claim, one must choose a preparer or attorney carefully, review the events meticulously to ensure accuracy, and to be able to testify in a direct, consistent, and believable manner. 

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

USCIS to Provide Asylee I-94 and Green Cards to Cases Approved by IJs and BIA

On May 4, 2023, USCIS announced that the agency is providing status documents for people who were granted asylee or permanent resident status by the Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Foreign nationals usually apply for legal status from the USCIS.  However, some individuals in removal cases have their cases heard and decided by the Immigration Court or the BIA.  When status is granted by an Immigration Judge or the BIA, an applicant sometimes had difficulties obtaining proof of their legal status.  The recent announcement means that USCIS is actively and affirmatively providing status documents to applicants after their cases are approved by the Immigration Court and/or the BIA.  

These documents include (1) Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, with asylee stamps, which are issued to applicants who have been granted political asylum; and (2) Permanet Resident Cards (green cards) for individuals who have been granted adjustment of status. 

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