H-1B fee blocked; firms hire abroad

A U.S. district court in Massachusetts on June 8 vacated the Trump administration’s $100,000 payment requirement for certain H-1B petitions, and USCIS now says the fee cannot be enforced under the current ruling. The case, State of California v. Mullin, challenged guidance tied to a September 2025 presidential proclamation that had imposed the charge on some new H-1B filings processed abroad. USCIS says the Department of Homeland Security disagrees with the ruling and moved to keep the policy alive during appeal. On July 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to stay the lower-court order, leaving the fee blocked for now. ### Which H-1B fee did the court block? The blocked charge was a $100,000 “supplemental payment” attached to certain new H-1B petitions, not the ordinary filing fees employers already pay. Immigration law updates summarizing the ruling say the measure stemmed from Presidential Proclamation 10973, signed on September 19, 2025, and took effect on September 21, 2025. The policy did not apply across all H-1B cases; DHS later clarified it did not cover extensions, change-of-status requests or changes of employer. (uscis.gov) ### Why is the fee still blocked after June? USCIS says the Massachusetts court “vacated agency guidance implementing the $100,000 payment requirement” on June 8, 2026. The agency also says DHS filed a motion to stay that order pending appeal with the First Circuit. Legal updates published after the appellate action say the First Circuit on July 24 declined to reinstate the fee while the appeal moves forward, meaning USCIS currently has no lawful basis to collect it. (burr.com) ### If the fee is blocked, why are companies still hiring abroad? Great Andhra reported on August 4 that visa uncertainty is coinciding with a 31% rise in global hiring for tech roles by U.S. firms. That report cited immigration lawyer Poorvi Chothani and global mobility lawyer Steven Brown, who said employers were responding not only to the proposed fee but to broader unpredictability around H-1B processing and U.S. immigration rules. (uscis.gov) Great Andhra is not a primary government or court source, so its hiring figure should be treated as directional rather than definitive. ### What does the court ruling change for employers right now? The immediate effect is cost relief for employers that would have faced the extra $100,000 payment on affected new H-1B petitions. Bloomberg reported on June 8 that the judge’s ruling provided a reprieve for U.S. technology companies that rely on skilled foreign workers. USCIS’s public alerts now direct readers to the court order and note that the implementing guidance was vacated, which is the clearest current agency statement on the fee’s status. (greatandhra.com) ### What does this mean for overseas candidates, including in India? The reported increase in offshore hiring suggests some U.S. companies may be shifting work to talent outside the United States rather than relying only on visa-based relocation. Great Andhra framed that as a possible opening for Indian candidates who can be hired remotely or through overseas entities, while lawyers quoted in the piece said employers were trying to reduce exposure to visa disruption. (bloomberg.com) That is a hiring-channel change, not a court-ordered outcome, and the clearest verified legal fact remains that the $100,000 fee is blocked while the appeal proceeds. ### What should readers watch next in the case? The next milestone is the federal government’s appeal in State of California v. Mullin before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. USCIS says DHS “strongly disagrees” with the district court’s order, and agency pages continue to carry alerts reflecting the June 8 ruling while the case moves ahead. Any change in the fee’s status is likely to appear first in updated USCIS alerts or a new court order from the First Circuit. (greatandhra.com) (uscis.gov)