The US Department of Homeland Security has expanded a $4,000 fee on H-1B petitions and a $4,500 levy on L-1 petitions to cover visa extensions filed by certain employers, even when workers remain with the same company.
WASHINGTON — The US Department of Homeland Security has expanded a $4,000 fee on H-1B petitions and a $4,500 levy on L-1 petitions to cover visa extensions filed by certain employers, even when workers remain with the same company.
The final rule will take effect on September 9 and could significantly increase the recurring immigration costs faced by companies that depend heavily on foreign professionals.
It applies only to employers with at least 50 employees in the United States when more than 50 per cent of their US workforce collectively holds H-1B, L-1A or L-1B status.
Such employers will be required to pay the 9/11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee each time they seek an extension of a covered employee’s status.
Until now, the fee generally applied to petitions seeking initial employment or a change of employer. An extension filed by the same employer for the same worker did not attract the fee when the separate fraud-prevention fee was not required.
“The regulatory changes correct DHS's interpretation of statutory language to require that covered employers submit the 9-11 Biometric Fee for all extension of status petitions, regardless of whether the related fraud prevention and detection fee applies,” DHS said.
The change does not increase the fee amounts. It broadens the number of petitions on which the existing charges must be paid.
Covered employers will pay $4,000 for each qualifying H-1B petition and $4,500 for each qualifying L-1 petition. Amended petitions that do not seek an extension of the worker’s authorised status will remain exempt.
The fee is paid by the employer, not the visa holder. DHS rejected suggestions that employees be permitted to pay it when their companies were unwilling to do so.
“The statutes and existing regulations specify that the fee is required to be paid by the employer,” the department said.
Documents noted that the rule could affect Indian technology and other skilled professionals indirectly if employers reconsider the cost of repeated visa extensions. Commenters had warned that higher expenses could discourage companies from retaining H-1B employees, reduce legal immigration and disadvantage workers caught in lengthy employment-based green-card queues.
The department rejected those concerns. It said the fee applied only to a limited category of employers and was small compared with wages, relocation expenses and other costs associated with hiring foreign professionals.
DHS also said demand for H-1B visas had exceeded their annual availability for more than a decade and it did not expect the rule to reduce the overall number of H-1B workers hired.
The department estimates that additional payments to the US government will total $37.9 million in fiscal 2026 and $40 million in fiscal 2027.
The expansion is substantial. Between fiscal 2018 and 2025, about 27 per cent of H-1B petitions submitted by covered employers attracted the biometric fee. Had the new interpretation been in effect, approximately 75 per cent of their H-1B petitions would have been subject to it.
DHS said its earlier interpretation of the law had been incorrect. Congress included applications for extensions when it established the fee in 2015, but DHS had linked its collection to circumstances in which the fraud-prevention fee also applied.
“The best interpretation of that statute is that the 9-11 Biometric Fee applies to all extension of status petitions even when the Fraud Fee is not applicable,” the department said.
The money supports the biometric entry-exit programme used to confirm the identity of foreign nationals entering and leaving the United States. Half the collections, up to a statutory limit, go into a dedicated biometric account, while the remainder enters the Treasury’s general fund.
DHS said fee collections had fallen from $158 million in fiscal 2016 to $25.6 million in fiscal 2025. It argued that broader collection was required to maintain facial-comparison and other biometric systems at American land, sea and air ports.