White House Reviews Potential $100,000 OPT Fee for International Students
A potentially dramatic change to the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program is moving through the federal regulatory process, with the Department of Homeland Security sending a proposed OPT fee rule to the White House for review.
The proposal, identified as RIN 1653-AB01, was submitted on August 20, 2026, to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), an important step before a major federal regulation can move forward. Public reporting indicates that DHS is considering a fee that could reach $100,000 in connection with OPT, although the actual text of the proposed rule has not yet been publicly released and the precise amount, structure, and party responsible for paying any new fee remain unknown.
What Is OPT?
Optional Practical Training allows eligible F-1 international students to obtain temporary employment authorization for work directly related to their field of study. For many international graduates, OPT—and particularly the STEM OPT extension—is a critical bridge between completing a U.S. degree and obtaining longer-term employment authorization, including H-1B status.
Approximately 300,000 F-1 students had employment authorization through OPT last year, demonstrating the enormous potential impact of any substantial new fee.
A $100,000 Fee Could Fundamentally Change OPT:
If DHS ultimately proposes and implements a fee approaching $100,000, the consequences could be significant for international students, universities, and U.S. employers.
Such a fee could make it substantially more difficult for international graduates to begin their careers in the United States, particularly those employed by start-ups, small and midsize businesses, universities, research institutions and other employers unable or unwilling to absorb a six-figure immigration-related cost.
It could also make the United States less competitive in attracting international students, particularly in STEM fields where OPT has traditionally provided graduates an opportunity to gain practical experience after completing their degrees.
Nothing Has Changed Yet:
International students and employers should understand that there is currently no new $100,000 OPT fee in effect.
The proposal is still under White House regulatory review. The publicly available information does not yet establish:
- Whether the fee will actually be $100,000;
- Whether it would apply to the student, employer, or another party;
- Whether it would apply to initial OPT, STEM OPT extensions, or both;
- Whether there would be exemptions or reduced fees;
- Whether it would apply to existing OPT holders;
- Or when any new requirement could become effective.
The White House may approve the proposal for further regulatory action, request modifications, or the administration could decide not to proceed with it.
What Students and Employers Should Do:
For now, F-1 students should not panic or change their immigration plans based solely on reports of a possible $100,000 fee. Current OPT and STEM OPT rules remain applicable unless and until the government completes the required regulatory process and announces a change.
However, this development should be watched very closely. If a proposed rule is published, international students, universities, employers, and immigration organizations will need to review the actual regulatory language, effective dates, transition provisions, and any opportunity for public comment.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C., will continue monitoring this proposed rule and provide an immediate update when DHS or the White House releases the actual text.
Major Changes for F-1 Students: End of “Duration of Status,” New Fixed Admission Periods, and a Reported $100,000 OPT Fee Proposal
Two major developments now affect every F-1 student, every graduate on OPT or STEM OPT, and every employer that hires them. First, on July 17, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule eliminating the decades-old “duration of status” (D/S) admission framework for F, J, and I nonimmigrants. Effective September 15, 2026, students will be admitted only until a fixed date on their Form I-94 — generally the program end date, not to exceed four years — and must file extensions with USCIS to stay longer. Second, according to national press reports beginning July 30, 2026, the White House and DHS are considering attaching a $100,000 fee to Optional Practical Training (OPT). The OPT fee is NOT law and has NOT been formally proposed — but the D/S rule is final and takes effect in weeks. This advisory explains both and what you should do now.
Part I: The End of “Duration of Status” — Final Rule Effective September 15, 2026
What is changing?
For more than 30 years, F-1 students (and J-1 exchange visitors and I media representatives) were admitted for “D/S” — no fixed expiration date, lawful stay as long as they maintained status. Under the final rule, published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2026 (DHS Docket No. ICEB-2025-0001), that framework ends on September 15, 2026. Key changes:
- Fixed admission period: F-1 students will be admitted for a fixed period tied to the program end date on the Form I-20, not to exceed four (4) years, shown as an “Admit Until Date” on the I-94.
- Shorter grace period: The post-completion grace period is reduced from 60 days to 30 days.
- Extension of stay (EOS) now goes through USCIS: Students needing time beyond their I-94 date must file Form I-539 (with fee and biometrics) with USCIS and demonstrate continued eligibility — generally compelling academic or medical reasons beyond the student’s control. School officials can no longer simply extend the I-20 to extend lawful stay.
- Unlawful presence risk: Once the I-94 expires, unlawful presence accrues automatically. More than 180 days triggers a 3-year bar; one year or more triggers a 10-year bar. Under D/S, unlawful presence generally began only after a formal finding — that protection is gone.
- New limits on program changes: Graduate students generally may not change educational objectives or transfer schools mid-program; students who complete a degree generally must progress to a higher level rather than pursue a second program at the same or lower level; English-language program students are capped at 24 months total.
- Dependents: F-2 dependents also receive fixed admission periods, never longer than the principal’s, and must file their own extensions.
Transition rules for students already in the U.S.
- If you are in D/S on September 15, 2026: Students properly maintaining status who were admitted for D/S may generally remain until the program end date on their current I-20, not to exceed four years from the effective date.
- OPT/STEM OPT transition benefit: Students in D/S who timely file for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT on or before March 18, 2027 do NOT need to file a separate I-539 extension — the OPT application itself covers the extension. WARNING: this benefit is lost if the student travels abroad and re-enters with a fixed-date I-94 before filing; after such re-entry, BOTH the I-765 and an I-539 must be filed.
- Cap-gap protected: F-1 students with a timely filed cap-subject H-1B petition keep their automatic cap-gap extension of status and work authorization without a separate EOS filing.
- Travel is now the trigger: Every student who travels after September 15, 2026 must check the I-94 immediately upon each re-entry. The I-94 date — not the I-20 — now controls how long you may lawfully remain.
Legal status of the rule:
This is a final rule, classified as a “major rule” subject to Congressional Review Act procedures, and at least one lawsuit has already been filed. Unless a court enjoins it or Congress acts — both uncertain — it takes effect September 15, 2026. Clients should plan on that date.
Part II: The Reported $100,000 OPT Fee — Under Consideration, Not Law:
On July 30, 2026, the Wall Street Journal reported (and other outlets confirmed) that the administration is internally considering a $100,000 fee tied to OPT, the program allowing roughly 400,000+ international graduates to work in the U.S. for one to three years after completing their degrees. Our clients should understand precisely what this is and is not:
- It is only a reported idea. There is no proposed rule, no proclamation, and no fee in effect. DHS has said only that no policy is final until formally announced. It is unknown whether the student, the university, or the employer would pay.
- A broader OPT rewrite is coming. DHS’s regulatory agenda lists a broader “Practical Training” proposed rule, currently projected for February 2027, aimed at tightening OPT and STEM OPT. Any fee, if pursued, would likely arrive through that or a similar action.
- The H-1B $100,000 fee precedent. The parallel $100,000 H-1B fee imposed by the September 19, 2025 Presidential Proclamation was struck down by a Massachusetts federal court on June 8, 2026 as an unauthorized tax, and on July 24, 2026 the First Circuit refused to stay that ruling pending appeal — so the H-1B fee is currently blocked. An OPT fee would face similar legal challenges, though OPT’s purely regulatory origin (it was created by regulation, not statute) may give DHS somewhat more flexibility. Separately, a new DHS proposed rule on H-1B petition fees cleared White House (OIRA) review in August 2026 but has not yet been published.
Bottom line: do not make decisions — declining a job offer, leaving the U.S., abandoning a degree program — based on the reported OPT fee. Do make decisions based on the D/S rule, which is real and imminent.
Part III: Action Items:
For F-1 students and OPT/STEM OPT workers:
- Download your I-94 from the CBP website after every entry and calendar the Admit Until Date. After September 15, 2026, that date governs your lawful stay.
- If you are finishing your program and eligible for OPT or STEM OPT, file the I-765 timely (and in any event by March 18, 2027 if relying on the transition benefit) — and avoid international travel before filing.
- Minimize nonessential international travel during the transition period. Re-entry converts you from D/S to a fixed I-94 date and can strip transition benefits.
- If you will need more time than your I-94 allows, contact us early — EOS filings require a currently issued I-20, biometrics, and proof of compelling circumstances, and must be filed before the I-94 expires.
- Never remain past your I-94 date. Unlawful presence and the 3- and 10-year bars now apply automatically.
For employers:
- Track I-94 expiration dates for F-1 employees on OPT/STEM OPT — not just EAD dates. An unexpired EAD does not protect an employee whose I-94 has lapsed.
- Build extension timelines into hiring plans, and treat the reported OPT fee as a planning risk, not a current cost.
- For candidates you intend to sponsor for H-1B, timely cap registration and filing preserves cap-gap protection under the new rule.
Immigration Site Visits: What H-1B, L-1, OPT and STEM OPT Employers Need to Know
Employers Should Be Prepared for Government Officers to Verify Worksites, Job Duties, Wages, Supervision and Immigration Compliance:
U.S. employers sponsoring foreign workers should be prepared for the possibility of government site visits designed to verify that the facts presented in immigration filings match what is actually happening at the workplace.
For H-1B and L-1 employers, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) uses compliance reviews and site visits as important tools to detect fraud and verify information submitted in immigration petitions. USCIS materials explain that inspections can include visits to the employer’s facilities, interviews with company officials and employees, examination of relevant records and verification of the beneficiary’s actual employment. (USCIS)
For F-1 students working under STEM OPT, DHS also has express authority to conduct employer site visits to determine whether the employer is complying with the STEM OPT program and the training obligations contained in Form I-983. (USCIS)
Employers therefore should treat immigration compliance as an ongoing responsibility—not something that ends when USCIS approves a petition or employment authorization.
H-1B Site Visits: What Officers May Verify:
During an H-1B compliance visit, government officers may seek to determine whether the petitioning employer and foreign national are complying with the representations made in the H-1B petition.
USCIS materials indicate that inspectors may verify the existence of the employer, photograph the premises, obtain documents and speak with company representatives concerning matters such as the beneficiary’s work location, workspace, working hours, salary and actual job duties. (USCIS)
Employers should therefore be prepared to establish that:
- The company is a legitimate and operating business;
- The H-1B employee actually works for the petitioning employer;
- The employee is working at the location authorized by the petition and LCA, subject to applicable rules;
- The employee’s actual duties are consistent with the H-1B petition;
- The employer maintains the required employer-employee relationship;
- The employee is being paid the required wage;
- Payroll and employment records are consistent with the petition;
- The employee’s hours and work arrangement match the representations made to USCIS; and
- Material changes have been addressed through an amended petition when legally required.
This is particularly important where H-1B employees work at third-party client locations, remotely, through consulting arrangements, or at locations different from the employer’s headquarters.
L-1 Site Visits: Intracompany Relationships Must Be Real:
L-1 employers should also be prepared to demonstrate that the corporate structure and employment described in the L-1 petition actually exist.
For an L-1A manager or executive, the employer should be able to establish the employee’s genuine managerial or executive role, organizational hierarchy, staffing, decision-making authority, and day-to-day responsibilities.
For an L-1B specialized-knowledge employee, the employer should be prepared to explain the company’s products, services, processes, or methodologies and precisely why the employee possesses the specialized knowledge claimed in the petition. USCIS specifically emphasizes detailed evidence concerning the nature of the petitioner’s business, the specialized knowledge involved and the beneficiary’s proposed duties. (USCIS)
The U.S. company should also maintain documentation establishing the qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities.
A problem can arise when an L-1 petition describes a beneficiary as a senior manager supervising professional employees, for example, but an inspection reveals that the company has few employees and the beneficiary primarily performs operational work.
OPT and STEM OPT: Employers Should Understand the Difference:
Regular post-completion OPT and the 24-month STEM OPT extension should not be treated as identical compliance programs.
For regular OPT, the student’s employment must generally be related to the student’s field of study and comply with the applicable F-1 practical-training requirements.
STEM OPT imposes substantially more detailed employer obligations. The employer must participate in E-Verify, and the student and employer must complete Form I-983, Training Plan for STEM OPT Students. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
The Form I-983 identifies the employer, employment site, compensation, training hours, student’s role, training goals, employer supervision and the methods used to evaluate the student’s progress. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
DHS Can Conduct STEM OPT Employer Site Visits:
DHS expressly reserves the right to conduct a site visit of a STEM OPT employer.
USCIS policy states that DHS may conduct a visit to determine whether the employer has the ability, personnel and resources to provide the structured and guided work-based learning experience represented in Form I-983.
DHS may also verify that the employer signing Form I-983 is actually the entity providing the student’s practical training. (USCIS)
This makes the accuracy of Form I-983 extremely important.
The document should not simply be completed as paperwork and forgotten after the STEM OPT application is approved.
Third-Party Placement Can Create Serious STEM OPT Problems
Employers using consulting or staffing models should pay particular attention to STEM OPT supervision.
USCIS states that a STEM OPT employer may not delegate its training responsibilities to a non-employer third party, such as a client, customer, client’s employee or contractor. (USCIS)
Accordingly, employers should be able to demonstrate that the employer signing Form I-983 genuinely provides and controls the student’s training and supervision.
A STEM OPT arrangement can become problematic where the paperwork states that Employer A supervises and trains the student, but in reality the student reports exclusively to Client B and Employer A has little meaningful involvement in the training.
What Might an Officer Ask an Employee?
Foreign national employees should be capable of truthfully explaining basic facts about their employment without being coached to memorize answers.
Questions may concern:
- Who is your employer?
- What is your job title?
- What do you actually do every day?
- Who is your supervisor?
- Where does your supervisor work?
- Where do you physically perform your work?
- How many hours do you work?
- What is your salary?
- Who assigns and reviews your work?
- Are you working for an end client?
For STEM OPT students, questions could additionally concern the training described in Form I-983, including how the employer supervises the student, what skills the student is developing and how progress is evaluated.
The employee’s answers should naturally correspond with the underlying immigration filing because the filing itself should accurately describe the real employment arrangement.
Employers Should Maintain a Site-Visit Compliance File:
Employers sponsoring H-1B, L-1 or STEM OPT workers should maintain easily accessible records so that management is not searching for basic immigration documents after an officer arrives.
Depending on the immigration category, the compliance file should include relevant documents such as the approval notice or EAD, petition or application materials, LCA where applicable, Form I-983 for STEM OPT, organizational charts, payroll records, recent pay statements, job descriptions, worksite information, supervisor information and relevant client documentation.
The company’s HR and reception personnel should also know whom to contact when an immigration officer arrives.
Never Provide False or Improvised Information:
One of the biggest mistakes during a site visit is attempting to explain away a discrepancy by providing inaccurate information.
If an employee, receptionist, or manager does not know the answer to a question, the person should not guess.
Employers should also verify the identity and credentials of anyone claiming to be a government officer and should promptly contact the company’s immigration counsel when a site visit occurs.
Employees should remain professional and cooperative while avoiding speculation or statements about matters outside their personal knowledge.
Discrepancies Can Have Serious Immigration Consequences:
A site visit does not automatically mean that the employer or employee has done anything wrong. Government agencies use compliance visits as verification and anti-fraud tools.
However, significant inconsistencies between an immigration filing and the actual employment situation can result in additional government scrutiny and potentially affect the underlying immigration benefit.
For H-1B and L-1 employers, discrepancies involving job duties, wages, work locations, corporate operations or the employer-employee relationship can be particularly important.
For STEM OPT employers and students, discrepancies involving Form I-983, supervision, training, work location or the identity of the entity actually providing the training can raise serious compliance concerns.
Immigration Compliance Does Not End With Approval:
The central lesson for employers is simple:
The facts presented to USCIS or DHS must continue to match the reality of the foreign national’s employment:
An approved H-1B or L-1 petition should reflect the employee’s real job, real employer, real worksite and real duties.
Likewise, a STEM OPT Form I-983 should describe a genuine training program that the employer actually provides.
Employers with substantial H-1B, L-1, OPT or STEM OPT populations should consider conducting periodic internal immigration compliance reviews before the government arrives at the door.
Our firm assists employers with H-1B, L-1, OPT and STEM OPT compliance, FDNS and DHS site-visit preparation, internal immigration audits, responses to government inquiries and representation when discrepancies are identified during an inspection.
Major Immigration Travel Warning: Advance Parole May No Longer Protect Against the 3- and 10-Year Unlawful Presence Bars
BIA Overrules 14 Years of Precedent in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has issued a major precedential decision that could dramatically change international travel planning for certain adjustment-of-status applicants and other foreign nationals who have accumulated unlawful presence in the United States.
In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), decided August 13, 2026, the BIA held that a person who leaves the United States pursuant to a grant of Advance Parole has made a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful-presence inadmissibility provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The decision expressly overrules Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), a precedent that immigration attorneys and foreign nationals had relied upon for approximately 14 years.
What Has Changed?
Under INA §212(a)(9)(B), certain individuals who accumulate unlawful presence in the United States and then depart may become inadmissible:
More than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence: potentially triggers a 3-year bar following departure:
One year or more of unlawful presence: potentially triggers a 10-year bar following departure.
For more than a decade, Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly provided an important protection. The BIA had held that an individual traveling temporarily pursuant to Advance Parole had not made the type of “departure” that triggered these unlawful-presence provisions.
That protection has now been overruled:
The BIA stated in Delcarmen-Lara that the statute contains no exception for a person who temporarily leaves the country pursuant to Advance Parole.
Advance Parole Is Not a Guarantee Against Inadmissibility:
This decision highlights an important distinction that foreign nationals should understand:
Having an approved Advance Parole document does not necessarily mean that it is safe to leave the United States:
Advance Parole is a travel document permitting an individual to seek parole into the United States. It does not erase prior unlawful presence or necessarily protect the traveler from other grounds of inadmissibility.
After Delcarmen-Lara, an individual who previously accumulated sufficient unlawful presence could potentially trigger a 3- or 10-year bar simply by departing the United States—even when the departure occurs with a valid Advance Parole document.
The New Rule Applies Prospectively:
There is an important limitation in the BIA’s decision.
The Board determined that its new interpretation should apply prospectively to departures occurring after the issuance of the August 13, 2026 decision.
The BIA recognized that Arrabally and Yerrabelly had been controlling precedent for approximately 14 years and that foreign nationals could reasonably have relied upon that decision when deciding whether to travel.
Therefore, individuals who previously traveled on Advance Parole should not automatically assume that their prior travel now triggers an unlawful-presence bar.
Nevertheless, anyone with a complicated immigration history should have the particular facts reviewed individually.
Who Should Be Particularly Careful?
This ruling is especially important for people who have:
- Accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence;
- Accumulated one year or more of unlawful presence;
- Overstayed a visa or authorized period of stay;
- Entered the United States without inspection;
- Previously had DACA, TPS or another form of temporary immigration protection;
- A pending Form I-485 adjustment-of-status application;
- Received Advance Parole based on a pending green-card application;
- Previous removal or deportation proceedings;
- A prior removal order; or
- Any uncertainty about whether a period in their immigration history constitutes unlawful presence.
Unlawful-presence calculations can be complicated. Not every period during which a person lacks traditional nonimmigrant status necessarily counts as unlawful presence, and statutory exceptions and other rules may apply.
DACA and Other Advance Parole Travelers Should Pay Particular Attention:
The decision could have substantial consequences for individuals who accumulated unlawful presence before receiving DACA or another immigration benefit and later obtain Advance Parole.
Before Delcarmen-Lara, some individuals could rely upon Arrabally in concluding that an Advance Parole trip would not trigger the unlawful-presence bars.
That analysis has fundamentally changed for future departures.
Anyone with a history of DACA, TPS, visa overstay, unauthorized stay or entry without inspection should obtain an individualized immigration analysis before boarding an international flight using Advance Parole.
Having a Pending I-485 Does Not Automatically Solve the Problem:
Adjustment-of-status applicants should also exercise caution.
A person may have:
- An approved Advance Parole document,
- A valid employment authorization document, and
- A pending Form I-485,
and still have an inadmissibility issue created by departing the United States if sufficient unlawful presence was accumulated beforehand.
This is particularly significant because adjustment of status generally requires the applicant to be admissible to the United States unless an applicable waiver or other exception is available.
Do Not Cancel All Advance Parole Travel—Review the Immigration History First:
The new decision does not mean that everyone with Advance Parole should stop traveling.
Many adjustment applicants have never accumulated unlawful presence sufficient to trigger INA §212(a)(9)(B). For those individuals, Delcarmen-Lara may not create a three- or ten-year bar.
The critical question is therefore not simply:
“Do I have Advance Parole?”:
The more important questions are:
- “Have I ever accumulated unlawful presence, how much unlawful presence did I accumulate, and what would happen if I depart the United States today?”
- Those questions should be answered before departure—not at the airport and not after leaving the United States.
Important Warning to Our Clients:
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. strongly recommends that any client with Advance Parole who has ever overstayed, accumulated unlawful presence, entered without inspection, held DACA or TPS, or otherwise has a complicated immigration history consult with immigration counsel before traveling internationally.
An Advance Parole approval alone should no longer be treated as confirmation that international travel is immigration-safe.
The Bottom Line:
The August 13, 2026 decision in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara represents one of the most significant recent changes affecting Advance Parole travel.
OLD RULE: Under Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, travel on Advance Parole was not treated as a departure that triggered the unlawful-presence bars.
NEW RULE: Under Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, an Advance Parole trip is a departure for purposes of the unlawful-presence provisions and can potentially trigger a 3-year or 10-year bar.
GOOD NEWS: The BIA made the new interpretation prospective rather than simply treating years of previous Advance Parole travel under Arrabally as subject to the newly announced rule.
CRITICAL ADVICE: Before traveling internationally on Advance Parole, determine whether you have accumulated unlawful presence and whether departure could trigger inadmissibility.
Individuals with pending adjustment-of-status applications or Advance Parole who have questions concerning unlawful presence should obtain a case-specific travel analysis before departing the United States.
Sincerely,
Keshab Raj Seadie, Esq.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult an attorney for personalized advice
