【请大家参与评论】H‑1B 申请拟额外收费 $103,265，境内外申请均受影响

submitted a comment

xiaotuziwanan 发表于 2026-8-27 13:30
有个笑话 说是中国在科技行业和美国的竞争 本质上是中国的中国人在和美国的烙印在竞争

这是阿三给自己贴金呢，他们也配？都是在中国的中国人和在硅谷的中国人竞争。

Comment 1：费用和 adjudication cost 不匹配

I respectfully oppose the proposed $103,265 H-1B fee because the amount does not appear reasonably tied to the actual cost of adjudicating an H-1B petition.

The proposed rule appears to calculate the fee by dividing approximately $8.8 billion in projected immigration-system costs by 85,000 cap-subject H-1B petitions. This methodology raises serious concerns. A filing fee should be connected to the cost of processing the benefit request. Here, the proposed amount appears to function as a broad revenue mechanism for multiple agencies and programs, rather than a fee based on the actual cost of adjudicating an H-1B petition.

H-1B employers already pay multiple fees, including the Form I-129 filing fee, ACWIA fee, fraud prevention and detection fee, asylum program fee where applicable, and premium processing fee if requested. Employers also pay legal fees, compliance costs, LCA-related costs, and internal HR costs. Adding another $103,265 fee on top of those existing costs would create an extraordinary burden.

DHS should explain why cap-subject H-1B petitioners should be responsible for broad immigration-system costs that are not directly connected to the adjudication of their own H-1B petitions. For example, if part of the revenue is intended to support broader immigration courts, enforcement, consular operations, or labor programs, DHS should explain why those costs should be imposed specifically on H-1B cap-subject employers rather than funded through ordinary appropriations or more broadly distributed fees.

I request that DHS withdraw the proposed rule or revise it so that any H-1B fee is limited to the reasonable cost of processing, adjudicating, and administering H-1B petitions.

Comment 2：岗位外包 / 美国竞争力角度

I respectfully oppose the proposed $103,265 H-1B fee because it may produce the opposite of its stated goal.

If U.S. employers cannot afford to sponsor highly skilled workers in the United States, some employers may not hire a U.S. worker as a substitute. Instead, they may move the work abroad, reduce U.S.-based hiring, delay projects, or shift investment to countries with more predictable immigration systems. This would harm U.S. competitiveness and may reduce, rather than protect, U.S. jobs.

For example, if a U.S. company cannot sponsor an engineer, researcher, data scientist, architect, healthcare professional, or other specialized worker because of a six-figure filing fee, the company may decide to build the team outside the United States. Once a project or team moves abroad, related jobs, management roles, tax revenue, intellectual property development, and future business growth may also move away from the United States.

The H-1B program is often used when employers need specialized skills. A fee of this size does not solve skill shortages. It simply makes lawful U.S.-based employment more expensive and less predictable. In practice, the rule could weaken U.S. innovation by making it harder for companies to hire and retain specialized talent in the United States.

DHS should withdraw the proposed rule and conduct a more complete economic analysis of how the fee would affect offshoring, project location decisions, innovation, startup formation, university-to-workforce pipelines, and U.S. competitiveness.

Comment 3：F-1 / OPT / STEM OPT 学生角度

I respectfully oppose the proposed $103,265 additional fee for H-1B cap-subject petitions.

As an international student / recent U.S. graduate, I invested substantial time, tuition, and effort in obtaining a U.S. education. Many students like me studied in the United States because U.S. universities, research programs, and employers attract global talent. After graduation, F-1 OPT and STEM OPT provide a limited period of work authorization, but the H-1B program is often the only realistic pathway for U.S.-educated graduates to continue working lawfully in the United States.

A $103,265 filing fee would make that pathway unavailable for many people, even when the employer has a legitimate need for the worker’s skills. For example, an employer considering a recent graduate for a software engineer, data analyst, biomedical researcher, accountant, teacher, or engineering role may decide that the additional six-figure fee is too expensive, even if the candidate was trained in the United States and is fully qualified for the position.

This would not only harm foreign graduates. It would also reduce the value of U.S. higher education, discourage future international students from choosing U.S. universities, and push U.S.-trained talent to other countries with more predictable immigration systems. The United States benefits when people educated here can contribute here, pay taxes here, and help U.S. companies grow.

I ask DHS to withdraw the proposed fee or, at minimum, create exemptions or reduced fees for U.S. degree holders, F-1 OPT / STEM OPT workers, early-career workers, and employers that cannot reasonably absorb a six-figure filing cost.

Comment 4：Small business / startup 角度

I respectfully oppose the proposed $103,265 additional fee for H-1B cap-subject petitions because it would disproportionately harm small businesses and startups.

A large corporation may be able to absorb a six-figure fee, but many small businesses cannot. For a startup or small employer, $103,265 may equal several months of payroll, the cost of another employee, or the budget for an entire project. If a small company needs one specialized employee, the proposed fee may make sponsorship impossible even when the company has a real business need and cannot easily find a qualified alternative.

For example, a startup hiring its first machine learning engineer, biotech researcher, chip design engineer, product designer, or specialized accountant may not have the cash flow to pay more than $100,000 in additional government fees before the worker even begins long-term employment. This may force the company to delay hiring, cancel projects, move work offshore, or lose competitiveness to larger companies.

The proposed rule therefore may not protect U.S. workers in practice. Instead, it may concentrate H-1B sponsorship among the largest employers while excluding smaller employers, startups, and regional businesses from competing for skilled talent. That would reduce competition and innovation in the U.S. labor market.

DHS should consider less burdensome alternatives, including withdrawing the fee, substantially reducing it, creating a small-business exemption, phasing any fee based on employer size or revenue, or applying a lower fee to first-time small-business sponsors.
.--

Civet 发表于 2026-8-26 08:40
想想看就知道应该是串的。越是小的企业越不可能在H1B这么多限制的条件下专门招外国人；大企业普通员工又是 ...

“大企业普通员工又是怎么知道企业是“故意”招外国人的”，看完你就知道是怎么操作的了https://www.1point3acres.com/bbs/thread-1142234-1-1.html
大企业把正式员工裁掉，再和icc合作请h1b contractor，成本可以压得很低的，vp还有回扣。

DAROL 发表于 2026-08-26 18:35:07
已评论。
评论里那些支持的，说h1b抢了公民饭碗的，请问如果在能力相当的情况下，为什么公司反而愿意承担身份不稳定的风险去雇佣一个外国人而非公民？那一定是因为这个

“为什么公司反而愿意承担身份不稳定的风险去雇佣一个外国人而非公民” - 我年轻的时候也是这么想的，后来发现h1b大量的名额都流向了印度人和icc雇主。

我觉的H1B 应该跟绿卡一样，每个国家都给一定的限额，EB 类的绿卡 每个国家不超过7%，H1B 同样也需要设定一个值。这样的话哪些abuse H1B 国家来的人，他们自己争去吧

下面是纽约曾琦律师提供的评论思路，刚看到，非常合理，大家可以参考提交自己的评论！

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/nFMW7Nis9FqTadR4TWgIaw

下面，是纽约曾琦律师在微信公众号中提供的评论思路，个人觉得非常合理，大家提交评论时可参考！

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/nFMW7Nis9FqTadR4TWgIaw

cravenbrave 发表于 2026-08-26 21:42:05
除了上面评论里的观点还有以下补充的观点，供参考
1.        对美国大学（Higher Education）的打击： 绝大多数 Cap-subject H-1B 属于在

下面，是纽约曾琦律师提供的评论思路，也非常合理，大家可参考提交自己的评论！