US DHS Proposes $100,000 Fee for H-1B and a New OPT Fee Rule, What Employers Should Verify in the Federal Register

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has, in recent rulemaking activity, signalled changes to the cost of employment-based immigration pathways that affect how companies hire and retain international graduates. One widely reported proposal concerns new fees tied to Optional Practical Training (OPT) for F-1 students. Because fee figures, docket numbers and comment deadlines change rapidly and are frequently misreported, employers should treat any specific dollar amount or deadline below as something to confirm directly against the current Federal Register entry and regulations. gov docket before relying on it.

This article explains the structure of such a proposal, who would pay, how costs can reach employers, and how to participate in the rulemaking process, while flagging the figures that must be independently verified.

Executive summary: the nature of the proposal

DHS has at times proposed new fees associated with Optional Practical Training for F-1 students. Where such a fee is proposed, it is typically structured to be charged to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified school, with the possibility that schools pass the cost on to students or employers. DHS generally frames such measures as anti-fraud and worker-protection tools.

Employers should not rely on any specific headline figure, docket number, publication date or comment deadline unless they have confirmed it in the live Federal Register document. Fee proposals of this type have in recent years been reported with widely varying amounts, and some have been subject to immediate legal challenge. The key practical point for in-house counsel and HR leaders is structural: if a fee attaches at the school level with an express pass-through pathway, the cost may land on employers through tuition surcharges, direct invoices or contractual reimbursement clauses. The single most important immediate action is to audit affected hires and decide whether to submit a comment, alone or through an industry body, before any applicable deadline.

What would change under a proposed OPT fee rule?

A proposed OPT fee rule would introduce a new fee regime layered on top of the existing Optional Practical Training framework administered under SEVP. OPT and STEM OPT sit within the F-1 nonimmigrant student regulations in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and any such proposed rule would operate against that backdrop. Typically a fee would be assessed per F-1 student per OPT grant, meaning an initial OPT authorization and any subsequent OPT period could be treated as separate chargeable events.

At a structural level, a proposal of this kind would generally do several things that corporate readers should note:

• Create a new OPT fee. The rule would establish a fee (the amount of which must be verified in the Federal Register text) charged to the SEVP-certified school rather than directly to the student or employer.
• Permit pass-through. DHS typically states that schools may pass the fee on to students or employers, leaving the commercial mechanism to the parties, which is precisely where contractual exposure arises.
• Tie the fee to stated policy goals. DHS usually positions such fees as tools to combat fraud and protect US workers, which signals the agency’s cost-benefit rationale and the arguments comment-writers will need to engage.
• Preserve the existing program structure. Such proposals generally add a fee on top of the current OPT and STEM OPT framework rather than abolishing the program.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking governs the detail, the regulatory text and impact analysis in the Federal Register document control. Employers and counsel should read the actual Federal Register document directly for the precise regulatory sections being amended, the effective-date language, the exact fee amounts, the Docket ID, and the regulatory impact analysis DHS relies on. The current OPT and SEVP provisions sit within Title 8 of the eCFR, and any proposed rule should be read against those existing provisions to understand exactly what is new.

Who is charged and who ultimately bears the cost?

The legal answer is typically clean; the commercial answer is not. Where a fee is charged to the SEVP-certified school, DHS commonly contemplates that schools may pass the fee on to students or employers. That single feature is why such a proposal matters to corporate budgets: the formal payer and the economic payer may be entirely different parties.

There are three realistic recipients of any pass-through:

• Students. Schools could recover the fee through tuition surcharges, program fees or a dedicated OPT administrative charge billed to the F-1 student.
• Employers. Where an employer sponsors or strongly incentivises an OPT or STEM OPT hire, a school or the student may seek employer reimbursement, either informally or through a contractual clause the employer agrees to in an offer letter.
• Third-party sponsors. Scholarship bodies, research sponsors or coalition programs could absorb part of the cost, shifting but not eliminating employer exposure.

Consider an illustrative scenario. Suppose a mid-sized life sciences company plans to convert several STEM graduates to full-time roles via OPT this cycle. If a school passes a proposed initial OPT fee through in full and the company agrees to reimburse it to secure the candidates, the gross cost multiplies across each hire. The point for counsel is that modest hiring volumes can produce substantial aggregate exposure once pass-through is layered on, and the precise per-hire amount depends on the fee figure in the final Federal Register text.

Pass-through models schools may use

Because DHS typically leaves the mechanism open, employers should anticipate several possible models and ask schools and vendors directly how they intend to recover any fee. Likely approaches include:

• One-time program fee. A flat charge added to the student’s program or OPT-processing costs at the point OPT is requested.
• Per-OPT cohort surcharge. A surcharge spread across a graduating cohort authorised for OPT in a given cycle.
• Per-student invoice to employers. A direct invoice to the hiring employer where the employer has agreed to fund the fee as part of a sponsorship arrangement.
• Scholarship or tuition adjustment. A reduction in financial support or an increase in tuition that indirectly recovers the fee from the student, who may then negotiate reimbursement with the employer.

Practical advice: ask the SEVP-certified school, in writing, (1) whether it intends to pass any fee through, (2) by what mechanism, (3) at what point in the OPT process the charge is triggered, and (4) whether it will invoice the student or the employer. The answers will determine whether, and how, you need to amend offer letters and vendor agreements.

Which current and planned hires are exposed? Scope and timing

A proposed OPT fee would typically apply per F-1 student for initial OPT and for subsequent OPT periods. In practical terms, three populations warrant immediate review:

• Current F-1 students applying for initial OPT. Graduates about to request their first period of post-completion OPT would be the most directly exposed to any proposed initial OPT fee.
• Students seeking subsequent OPT. Any student seeking a further OPT period could be subject to a proposed subsequent-OPT fee.
• STEM OPT participants. Employers that rely heavily on the STEM OPT extension to retain graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics roles should assess their exposure carefully and check the Federal Register text for how STEM OPT periods are treated.

Timing is the critical variable, and it is governed by the effective-date language in the Federal Register document. Employers should not assume that pending OPT applications are automatically covered or exempt, the Federal Register text controls whether applications in process are affected. Because a proposed rule is not yet law, no fee is payable while a proposal remains pending; any obligation would only crystallise if and when a final rule takes effect.

A sensible employer audit has three steps. First, list every active and pending OPT and STEM OPT hire. Second, map each to its OPT stage (initial versus subsequent) and anticipated timeline. Third, flag any candidate whose OPT grant could fall after a potential effective date so that budget and contractual planning can begin now rather than after any comment window closes.

How the cost could reach employers: practical scenarios

The clearest way to understand employer exposure is to model it against whatever fee figure the Federal Register ultimately sets. The scenarios below illustrate mechanism and magnitude; the specific dollar amounts must be drawn from the live Federal Register document, not from any pre-publication reporting.

• Startup hiring a single initial-OPT graduate. If the school passes through the full initial OPT fee and the startup agrees to reimburse to win the candidate, the direct cost equals the fee amount, a potentially material line item for an early-stage company’s hiring budget.
• Enterprise hiring a STEM cohort. A large employer onboarding several STEM graduates could face multiples of the fee, turning what was previously a low-cost pipeline into a significant recruiting expense.
• Tuition-split for sponsored students. Where an employer part-funds tuition for a sponsored student, a tuition-based pass-through could silently route part of the fee into existing sponsorship commitments unless contracts are reviewed.
• Entry-level and internship pipelines. Programs built on converting interns via OPT may see per-hire economics shift enough to change headcount planning.

The sensitivity of these outcomes depends on employer size and cohort type. A small startup absorbing a single fee feels the impact acutely per hire; a large enterprise feels it in aggregate across many hires. STEM-heavy employers face concentrated exposure because the STEM OPT extension has historically been central to their retention strategy.

Comparison: current OPT practice versus a proposed fee rule

Legal and regulatory status: proposed rules versus final rules

It bears emphasising because it governs everything that follows: a proposed rule is not a final rule. A fee of this type would be advanced through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Under the standard federal rulemaking process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, DHS must generally publish the proposal, invite public comment, consider the comments received, and then decide whether to issue a final rule, which may differ from the proposal, be delayed, or not issue at all.

Any comment period closes on the date stated in the Federal Register document; employers must confirm that date directly rather than relying on secondary reporting. After the window closes, DHS reviews submissions and may revise the fee amount, the pass-through framing, the effective date or the scope before publishing any final rule. The timeline from proposal to final rule is not fixed and can run from months to considerably longer, depending on the volume and substance of comments and any further agency review.

Employers should also understand that final rules of this kind can be subject to legal challenge, including on administrative-law grounds such as whether an action is arbitrary and capricious or whether the agency observed required procedures. The practical implication is that even a finalised fee could face litigation and may be enjoined. For planning purposes, the right posture is to prepare for the possibility that a fee becomes effective while recognising that nothing is owed unless and until a final rule takes effect and survives any legal challenge. The American Bar Association’s immigration resources are a useful reference point for understanding the procedural mechanics and administrative-law standards relevant to commenting and challenge.

How to submit a comment, step by step

The comment window is the single most direct way for employers to influence the outcome. Comments must be received on or before the deadline stated in the Federal Register document, and they should be substantive, data-driven and tied to the regulatory record.

1. Locate the docket. Open the relevant Federal Register document and follow the comment instructions it contains, including the Docket ID and the link to the corresponding regulations.gov docket.
2. Decide on a filing strategy. Choose whether to file as an individual employer, as part of a trade association, or as a member of a multi-employer coalition. Coalition filings can carry more weight and spread the drafting burden.
3. Gather business-impact data. Assemble the metrics that make your comment persuasive: number of OPT and STEM OPT hires, roles affected, estimated cost impact of the proposed fees, and downstream effects on hiring, research or growth.
4. Make targeted legal and economic points. Effective comments engage the agency’s cost-benefit analysis directly and may raise administrative-law concerns such as whether the fee is arbitrary and capricious or whether the regulatory impact analysis adequately accounts for employer and workforce effects.
5. Attach supporting material. Where the docket permits attachments, include economic analysis, workforce data and any studies that substantiate your impact estimates.
6. Mind confidentiality. Remember that comments generally become part of the public record. Do not include confidential business information you are not prepared to disclose publicly.
7. Submit before the deadline. File well ahead of the stated deadline to avoid portal issues, and retain your confirmation.

Sample short comment (one paragraph)

Use the following template, replacing the bracketed placeholders, as a starting point for a concise employer comment on a proposed OPT fee rule:

“[Company name] respectfully submits this comment on the proposed rule concerning Optional Practical Training fees, Docket [insert Docket ID]. We employ [number] individuals authorised under OPT and the STEM OPT extension, including [number] in STEM roles. The proposed fees, if passed through by SEVP-certified schools to employers, would increase our per-hire costs by an estimated [amount] and materially affect our ability to recruit and retain early-career talent in [sector/region]. We respectfully request that DHS reconsider the fee level, clarify the pass-through framework, and fully account for employer and workforce impacts in its regulatory impact analysis.”

Expanded comment for an association or joint filing

A coalition or trade-association filing should build out three additional sections beyond the short template: (1) an economic-analysis section quantifying aggregate impact across member employers, including hiring volumes, affected sectors and estimated total cost of pass-through; (2) a regulatory-flexibility request asking DHS to consider less burdensome alternatives, phased implementation or exemptions for specified categories; and (3) a legal-argument section addressing the adequacy of the cost-benefit analysis and any administrative-law concerns. Multi-employer filings should identify each participating organisation, summarise the combined workforce affected, and present a unified ask so the record reflects a coherent industry position.

Workforce planning alternatives if OPT becomes more expensive

Even while a rule is only proposed, prudent employers should model alternatives. The following options carry different cost, timing and compliance trade-offs:

• Prioritise already-authorised hires. Where appropriate and consistent with the final effective-date language, focus near-term hiring on candidates already authorised or on STEM OPT. Pros: may avoid potential new fees; cons: limited candidate pool.
• Develop an H-1B strategy. Revisit H-1B cap, transfer and timing planning as a route for retaining key talent, bearing in mind that H-1B costs and rules are themselves subject to change. Pros: a durable work-authorisation path; cons: cap uncertainty and separate costs and timelines.
• Consider remote or contracted arrangements where permissible. Explore compliant remote hiring or contracting models. Pros: flexibility; cons: significant immigration and employment-law constraints that must be checked case by case.
• Expand domestic recruitment and apprenticeships. Broaden domestic graduate pipelines and apprenticeship programs. Pros: reduces reliance on OPT; cons: longer lead times to build pipelines.
• Choose between tuition reimbursement and direct pass-through terms. Decide, deliberately, whether and how to fund any pass-through. Pros: cost control; cons: tax and contract complexity.
• Address fees in offer letters. Negotiate offer-letter language that allocates any future fee clearly between the parties. Pros: certainty; cons: may affect candidate attractiveness.

Each alternative carries compliance flags. Remote and contracting arrangements must respect immigration-authorisation rules and wage-and-hour obligations. Any reimbursement or deduction arrangement should be checked against employment-law requirements, including fair-labor-standards considerations, before implementation.

Contracts, offer letters and vendor-school dialogues to manage risk

Because a fee of this type is charged to schools but may be passed through, the contractual layer is where employers can most effectively manage exposure. Counsel should consider:

• Fee-reimbursement and indemnity clauses. Define clearly whether, and up to what cap, the employer will fund any OPT fee, and allocate responsibility if a school changes its pass-through mechanism.
• Conditional offer language. Consider offer-letter provisions that make certain commitments contingent on the regulatory outcome, so the business is not locked into undefined future costs.
• Vendor and school agreements. Where employers work with schools or sponsorship vendors, negotiate transparency on pass-through and, where possible, caps or shared-cost arrangements.
• Scholarship and tax considerations. Any scholarship commitment or reimbursement may carry tax consequences for the student and the employer; coordinate with tax advisers before finalising terms.

Throughout, keep immigration-compliance and employment-law risk in view. Clauses that shift costs to employees, or that could be read as conditioning employment on immigration status in impermissible ways, require careful drafting and legal review.

Next steps for employers and counsel, action checklist

With any comment deadline potentially approaching, the following actions are time-sensitive:

1. Verify the facts. Confirm the exact fee amounts, Docket ID, publication date and comment deadline in the live Federal Register document before acting on any reported figure.
2. Audit current and pending OPT hires, including STEM OPT, and map each to its OPT stage.
3. Notify talent acquisition and HR so hiring plans reflect potential cost changes.
4. Build budget scenarios using the verified fee figures against realistic hiring volumes.
5. Engage SEVP-certified schools in writing about whether and how they will pass the fee through.
6. Draft or join a comment and prepare supporting business-impact data.
7. Decide on a coalition filing if an industry position would carry more weight.
8. Review offer-letter and vendor templates for fee-reimbursement and indemnity language.
9. Submit comments before the deadline and monitor the docket for any revised timetable or legal developments.

Appendix: resources and sample templates

For primary-source verification and comment submission, consult the Federal Register, regulations.gov, DHS policy materials, and the ICE SEVP program pages for the role of SEVP-certified schools. Review the existing OPT and SEVP provisions in Title 8 of the eCFR to situate any proposed changes, and use the American Bar Association’s immigration resources for procedural guidance on commenting. The short and expanded comment templates above are provided as editable starting points; adapt the placeholders to your organisation’s data before filing.

In short, a proposed OPT fee rule, if finalised and passed through by schools, could materially change the economics of hiring international graduates. Any such rule is not law until finalised, specific figures and deadlines must be confirmed against the live Federal Register document, and employers that act early can both manage their exposure contractually and shape the regulatory record while it remains open.

Sources

1. Federal Register
2. Regulations.gov
3. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
4. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, SEVP
5. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Fees
6. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 8
7. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (8 U.S.C.)
8. American Bar Association