EB-1A Self-Petition and O-1 Agent-Based Petitions: Powerful Immigration Options for Extraordinary Ability Professionals
For highly accomplished professionals, entrepreneurs, researchers, scientists, physicians, engineers, technology leaders, artists, executives, athletes, and other individuals who have reached the top levels of their fields, two U.S. immigration classifications provide exceptional flexibility: the EB-1A Extraordinary Ability green card and the O-1 Extraordinary Ability nonimmigrant visa.
These classifications are particularly attractive because they can provide alternatives to the traditional employer-sponsored immigration model.
An EB-1A applicant may self-petition for permanent residence without a permanent job offer or PERM labor certification.
An O-1 beneficiary cannot technically self-petition, but in appropriate circumstances a U.S. agent may file the O-1 petition, including cases involving multiple employers, projects, engagements, or traditionally self-employed professionals.
Understanding this distinction can open important immigration strategies for accomplished foreign nationals who do not want their immigration future tied entirely to one U.S. employer.
EB-1A: A Green Card You Can Self-Petition:
The EB-1A immigrant classification is available to individuals of extraordinary ability in:
- Sciences;
- Arts;
- Education;
- Business; or
- Athletics.
One of its greatest advantages is that no U.S. employer is required to sponsor the I-140 petition.
Unlike most EB-2 and EB-3 employment-based green card cases, EB-1A also does not require PERM labor certification.
The individual may file Form I-140 on his or her own behalf. This can provide tremendous professional independence.
A successful applicant is not obtaining permanent residence because a particular employer promises to employ the individual permanently. Instead, the applicant qualifies based on extraordinary ability and must demonstrate an intention to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability in the United States.
What Does “Extraordinary Ability” Mean?
EB-1A is reserved for individuals who have demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field.
There are essentially two evidentiary routes.
An applicant may demonstrate a one-time major internationally recognized achievement, or establish eligibility through evidence satisfying at least three of the regulatory criteria.
The regulatory criteria include evidence of:
1. Awards or Prizes
- Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence.
2. Selective Memberships
- Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements from their members, as judged by recognized experts.
3. Published Material About the Applicant
- Published material about the applicant and the applicant’s work in professional publications, major trade publications or major media.
4. Judging the Work of Others
- Participation as a judge of the work of others, individually or as part of a panel.
- Examples may include peer review of journal articles, conference paper review, judging competitions, evaluating grants or serving on professional review panels.
5. Original Contributions of Major Significance
- Evidence of original scientific, scholarly, artistic, business-related or other contributions that have had major significance in the field.
6. Scholarly Authorship
- Authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
7. Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
- Display of the applicant’s work at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
8. Leading or Critical Role
- Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations.
9. High Compensation
- Evidence that the applicant has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration compared with others in the field.
10. Commercial Success in the Performing Arts
- Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Meeting Three Criteria Does Not Automatically Win an EB-1A:
This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of EB-1A adjudication. Simply checking three boxes does not necessarily establish extraordinary ability. USCIS generally evaluates the case in two stages.
First, USCIS determines whether the evidence satisfies the applicable regulatory criteria.
Second, USCIS considers the evidence as a whole to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated the required level of extraordinary ability and sustained acclaim.
Therefore, an effective EB-1A petition should not merely say:
“I published papers, reviewed articles and earn a high salary; therefore, I satisfy three criteria.”
The stronger case explains why those accomplishments distinguish the applicant from others in the field.
The petition should tell a coherent professional story supported by objective evidence.
The Importance of the Final Merits Analysis:
The final merits analysis is often where sophisticated EB-1A cases are won or lost.
Consider a researcher with:
- 20 publications;
- 500 citations;
- 30 peer reviews;
- Several recommendation letters; and
- An important position at a respected institution.
Those numbers may help satisfy individual criteria, but the petition should go further.
It should explain the significance of the research, how other researchers or organizations have relied upon it, whether the citations demonstrate unusual influence, why the applicant was selected as a reviewer, and how the applicant’s contributions compare with others working in the same area.
Similarly, a business executive should not rely merely on a senior title. Evidence could demonstrate that the executive developed an important product, generated substantial revenue, led a major expansion, developed intellectual property, transformed operations, received industry recognition or otherwise made an impact beyond ordinary successful employment.
Why EB-1A Self-Petitioning Is So Powerful:
The self-petition feature creates several strategic advantages.
No Permanent Sponsoring Employer Required
- The applicant files the I-140 personally and does not need an employer to serve as petitioner.
No PERM Labor Certification
- There is no prevailing wage determination, recruitment campaign or PERM labor certification.
- That can eliminate a lengthy stage of the traditional employment-based green card process.
Entrepreneurs May Qualify
- A founder or entrepreneur does not necessarily need an unrelated U.S. company to sponsor the green card.
- The applicant’s accomplishments must still satisfy the demanding EB-1A standard, but entrepreneurship itself does not prevent self-petitioning.
Ability to Change Employers
Because EB-1A does not depend upon a permanent job offer from a particular petitioning employer, the applicant has considerably more professional flexibility than someone whose permanent residence is tied to a traditional employer-sponsored position.
The applicant must nevertheless intend to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability.
What Does “Continue Working in the Field” Mean?
Self-petition does not mean that there is no future-work requirement.
An EB-1A applicant must demonstrate that he or she intends to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability in the United States.
Evidence could include, depending on the case:
- Employment agreements;
- Offer letters;
- Consulting agreements;
- Business plans;
- Client contracts;
- Statements describing intended U.S. work;
- Evidence of an established U.S. business;
- Upcoming research;
- Speaking engagements;
- Professional collaborations; or
- Other evidence demonstrating continued work in the field.
The central issue is not necessarily having one permanent employer. It is demonstrating a credible intention to continue contributing in the applicant’s area of expertise.
O-1 Extraordinary Ability Visa:
The O-1 provides a temporary nonimmigrant option for accomplished foreign nationals.
There are two principal extraordinary-ability classifications:
O-1A generally covers extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, and athletics.
O-1B applies to extraordinary ability in the arts and extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry.
Unlike EB-1A, however, an O-1 beneficiary cannot simply file Form I-129 for himself or herself. There must be a qualifying petitioner.
This is where the U.S. agent petition can become extremely valuable.
O-1 Agent-Based Petition: An Alternative to One-Employer Sponsorship:
U.S. immigration regulations expressly permit certain O petitions to be filed by a U.S. agent.
An agent may be particularly useful for individuals who:
- Are traditionally self-employed;
- Work on multiple projects;
- Provide services to several companies;
- Have multiple short-term engagements;
- Work as consultants;
- Perform at different venues;
- Work for different clients during the requested O-1 period; or
- Have a foreign employer requiring the services of a U.S. agent for immigration purposes.
This structure is common in entertainment and athletics, but it is not necessarily limited to entertainers or athletes.
Depending on the facts and proper documentation, an agent structure can also be important for entrepreneurs, consultants and other accomplished professionals whose work does not fit neatly within a single traditional employer relationship.
The U.S. Agent Does Not Always Have to Be a Traditional Talent Agency:
This is another important distinction.
For immigration purposes, a U.S. agent is not necessarily required to be a Hollywood-style talent agency or professional management company.
USCIS has recognized different agent relationships under the O regulations.
Depending on the structure, the U.S. agent may function as:
- The actual employer;
- An agent performing the function of an employer;
- A representative of the beneficiary and multiple employers; or
- An authorized U.S. agent acting for a foreign employer.
The documentation required depends heavily on which structure is being used.
Example: Technology Consultant Working for Multiple Companies:
Consider an accomplished artificial intelligence specialist who qualifies for O-1A. The individual expects to undertake projects for:
Company A: AI architecture consulting;
Company B: Machine-learning product development;
Company C: Technical advisory services; and
Company D: Industry speaking and training engagements.
Instead of requiring four completely independent immigration strategies, an appropriately structured U.S. agent petition may potentially cover multiple qualifying engagements.
The petition must properly document the agent relationship, actual work, contracts and itinerary.
This can provide significantly greater flexibility than an O-1 petition based exclusively on employment for one company.
Example: Entrepreneur or Startup Founder:
Suppose a highly accomplished technology entrepreneur wants to build a U.S. startup while also advising other companies and participating in industry engagements.
A traditional employer-sponsored structure may not accurately reflect the person’s professional activities.
Depending on the corporate structure, contracts, itinerary and other facts, an O-1 agent arrangement may provide a viable strategy.
The petition still needs to establish genuine qualifying work. An agent structure should not be used simply to create a paper petitioner while the beneficiary engages in unrestricted employment.
Contracts Are Critical:
Agent-based O-1 petitions require careful documentation of the proposed engagements.
Depending upon the agent structure, USCIS may require contracts between the beneficiary and the employers or entities receiving the beneficiary’s services.
Where written contracts do not exist in circumstances where USCIS permits evidence of an oral agreement, detailed evidence of the terms may be necessary.
The documentation should clearly establish matters such as:
- Nature of the services;
- Parties to the engagement;
- Dates;
- Compensation;
- Locations;
- Terms and conditions; and
- Agent’s authority.
Weak, vague or speculative documentation can create substantial problems.
The Itinerary Is the Road Map of an Agent-Based O-1:
Where the beneficiary will provide services in multiple locations or for multiple employers, the itinerary becomes particularly important.
A well-prepared itinerary should identify, as applicable:
- Dates of each engagement;
- Employer or client;
- Nature of the activity;
- Address of the employer;
- Worksite or venue;
- Location where services will be performed; and
- Corresponding contract or supporting documentation.
The itinerary should be consistent with the contracts and the overall requested O-1 validity period.
An O-1 petition should be based upon real, sufficiently documented proposed work, rather than purely speculative future opportunities.
Agent Authorization Must Be Properly Established:
If an agent is filing on behalf of multiple employers, the record should establish the agent’s authority to represent the relevant parties for purposes of the petition.
USCIS has explained that an agent does not necessarily need to prove that acting as an agent is its ordinary business activity in every situation. Evidence may instead demonstrate that the petitioner has been duly authorized to act as agent for purposes of the O petition.
The precise documentation should be tailored to the structure being used.
O-1 Is Not Self-Petitioning:
This distinction must remain clear:
EB-1A: YES — true self-petition is permitted.
O-1: NO — the beneficiary cannot directly self-petition.
But:
O-1: A qualifying U.S. agent can petition in appropriate circumstances.
That makes the O-1 agent structure functionally flexible, but legally it remains different from EB-1A self-petitioning.
EB-1A vs. O-1 Agent Petition:
Using O-1 and EB-1A Together
For many highly accomplished foreign nationals, the strongest strategy may not be choosing between O-1 and EB-1A.
It may be using them together as part of a coordinated immigration plan.
For example:
Stage 1 — O-1A Agent Petition
- An accomplished professional obtains O-1 status through a properly structured U.S. agent and continues developing projects, publications, media recognition, judging activity, commercial accomplishments, leadership roles and other achievements.
Stage 2 — Strengthen the EB-1A Record
- While lawfully working in the United States, the individual continues building objective evidence of sustained acclaim and significant contributions.
Stage 3 — EB-1A Self-Petition
- When the record is sufficiently strong, the individual files an EB-1A I-140 without depending upon a permanent sponsoring employer.
Stage 4 — Permanent Residence
- When an immigrant visa is available and all other requirements are satisfied, the individual proceeds through adjustment of status or immigrant visa processing.
This can be an exceptionally useful strategy for entrepreneurs, researchers, executives, consultants and other professionals who need employment flexibility while pursuing permanent residence.
Building a Strong Extraordinary Ability Case:
Whether pursuing EB-1A or O-1, the strongest petitions generally begin with a detailed credential audit rather than simply collecting documents.
We typically want to identify evidence in several categories:
Recognition: Awards, media coverage, invitations and professional recognition.
Impact: Citations, adoption of work, patents, commercial results, revenue, industry influence or measurable outcomes.
Leadership: Critical roles, senior responsibilities and impact on distinguished organizations.
External Validation: Independent experts, judging, peer review and invitations based upon expertise.
Compensation: Salary, equity, consulting rates or other remuneration compared with appropriate benchmarks.
Scholarly/Professional Work: Publications, presentations, patents, conference participation and other intellectual contributions.
Future U.S. Work: Employment, consulting, entrepreneurship, research, collaborations and other planned activities.
The objective should be to create a case in which the evidence reinforces a single proposition:
This individual has achieved distinction substantially beyond ordinary professional success and will continue contributing at that level in the United States.
Common Mistakes:
Strong credentials alone do not guarantee approval.
Common problems include submitting large quantities of evidence without explaining its significance; relying excessively on recommendation letters; treating ordinary professional memberships as extraordinary; claiming every publication constitutes a major contribution; failing to establish why an employer or organization has a distinguished reputation; using compensation comparisons that do not match the applicant’s occupation or geography; and submitting speculative O-1 engagements without credible contracts or itineraries.
A sophisticated petition should distinguish between having evidence and proving the legal requirement that the evidence is intended to establish.
The Bottom Line:
EB-1A and O-1 offer two of the most flexible immigration strategies available to highly accomplished foreign nationals.
EB-1A provides genuine self-petitioning: no permanent sponsoring employer and no PERM labor certification are required. The applicant must establish extraordinary ability and demonstrate an intention to continue working in the area of expertise.
O-1 does not permit true self-petitioning, but a properly structured U.S. agent petition can provide substantial flexibility for qualifying individuals working for multiple employers, clients, projects or engagements.
For the right candidate, an O-1 agent petition can provide the temporary work-authorized platform while an EB-1A self-petition provides the path toward permanent residence.
The key is not merely accumulating awards, publications or recommendation letters. The case must be strategically developed to demonstrate sustained acclaim, meaningful impact, recognition by others in the field and a credible plan for continued extraordinary work in the United States.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. assists extraordinary ability professionals, entrepreneurs, researchers, scientists, executives, technology leaders, artists and other accomplished individuals with O-1 and EB-1A eligibility analysis, petition strategy, and preparation.
DHS Proposes $103,265 Additional Fee for H-1B Cap-Subject Petitions
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a dramatic new $103,265 additional filing fee for H-1B cap-subject petitions, a change that, if finalized, could substantially increase the cost of sponsoring new H-1B workers through the annual H-1B cap.
Under the proposal, the $103,265 fee would be paid at the time the H-1B cap petition is filed with USCIS and would be in addition to all other applicable H-1B government filing fees.
Importantly, this is only a proposed rule and is not currently in effect. Employers should not pay or budget the fee as an existing USCIS filing requirement unless and until DHS issues a final rule with an effective date.
Who Would Be Subject to the New Fee?
According to DHS, the proposed $103,265 fee would apply to all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including:
- Regular H-1B cap cases subject to the annual 65,000 limit; and
- H-1B petitions qualifying for the 20,000 U.S. advanced-degree exemption, commonly known as the master’s cap.
The proposal therefore targets primarily new H-1B workers selected through the annual cap process.
Which H-1B Cases Would Be Exempt?
The proposed additional fee would not apply to H-1B petitions that are exempt from the annual numerical cap.
This would include qualifying petitions filed by certain:
- U.S. institutions of higher education;
- Affiliated or related nonprofit entities;
- Nonprofit research organizations; and
- Governmental research organizations.
Employers should nevertheless carefully determine whether a particular petition is actually cap-exempt before assuming that the proposed fee would not apply.
Why Is DHS Proposing a $103,265 Fee?
DHS states that the additional fee is intended to recover a portion of federal government costs associated with administering the lawful immigration system.
According to DHS, these costs extend beyond USCIS petition adjudications and include fraud detection and national security vetting, immigration systems modernization, records and fee collection, immigration court operations, consular visa processing, labor standards enforcement, and interagency immigration activities.
DHS estimates that approximately 85,000 H-1B cap-subject petitions annually would be subject to the proposed fee, potentially generating approximately $8.8 billion per year
Potential Impact on U.S. Employers:
If finalized in its proposed form, the new fee would fundamentally change the economics of H-1B sponsorship.
An employer sponsoring a cap-subject H-1B worker could face more than $100,000 in additional government costs for a single petition, before considering the existing I-129 filing fee, Asylum Program Fee, ACWIA fee, Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee, premium processing fee where requested, and legal fees.
The financial impact could be particularly significant for small and mid-sized businesses, technology companies, startups, healthcare organizations, consulting companies, and other employers that rely on highly skilled foreign professionals.
It could also cause employers to reassess workforce planning and consider other available immigration classifications, where appropriate, including cap-exempt H-1B employment, O-1, L-1, TN, E-3 and employment-based permanent residence strategies.
What Employers Should Do Now:
Employers should remember that the $103,265 fee is a proposal, not a current filing requirement.
Companies planning H-1B cap sponsorship should continue preparing their immigration strategies under the rules currently in effect while closely monitoring the proposed rulemaking.
Employers should also begin evaluating which employees may require H-1B cap sponsorship, whether any workers qualify for cap-exempt H-1B employment or another visa classification, and whether longer-term green card sponsorship should be initiated earlier.
Because a fee of this magnitude could significantly affect recruiting and immigration budgets, employers with substantial foreign-national workforces should consider contingency planning well before the next H-1B cap filing season.
DHS Moves Toward Major New H-1B and OPT Fees: International Students and U.S. Employers Could Face Dramatically Higher Costs
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is moving forward with major new fee initiatives targeting two of the most important employment pathways for foreign professionals and international students in the United States: the H-1B specialty occupation program and F-1 Optional Practical Training (OPT).
DHS has now formally proposed a $103,265 additional fee for H-1B cap-subject petitions, while a separate proposed regulation concerning new OPT fees is under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Although the H-1B proposal is now public, the contents of the OPT proposal remain confidential while the rule undergoes federal review. Recent reports have suggested that the government may be considering an OPT fee as high as $100,000, but DHS has not yet officially confirmed the amount.
Therefore, international students and employers should understand an important distinction: no new $100,000 OPT fee is currently in effect, and the final amount of any proposed OPT fee will not be known until DHS publishes the proposed regulation.
DHS Formally Proposes $103,265 H-1B Fee:
On August 24, 2026, DHS announced a proposed rule establishing a new $103,265 fee for H-1B cap-subject petitions.
The proposal was formally published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2026.
The extraordinary fee would be paid at the time the H-1B petition is filed and would be in addition to the existing USCIS filing fees and other statutory H-1B fees.
The proposed fee would apply to:
- H-1B petitions subject to the regular 65,000 annual cap; and
- H-1B petitions eligible for the additional 20,000 U.S. advanced-degree exemption.
DHS estimates that the fee could generate approximately $8.8 billion annually based on approximately 85,000 cap-subject H-1B petitions.
Cap-Exempt H-1B Petitions Would Not Be Subject to the $103,265 Fee:
The proposed H-1B fee is targeted at cap-subject cases.
It would not apply to H-1B petitions that are not subject to the annual numerical limitation, including qualifying petitions filed by certain:
- Institutions of higher education;
- Nonprofit research organizations; and
- Governmental research organizations.
This distinction could become extremely important if the regulation is finalized.
The proposed $103,265 fee also should not be confused with ordinary H-1B extensions, amendments and change-of-employer cases where the beneficiary has already been counted against the H-1B cap. Whether a particular petition is subject to the new fee will depend upon whether it is a cap-subject petition under the final regulation.
Separate OPT Fee Regulation Is Moving Forward:
At the same time, DHS is pursuing a separate rule titled “Optional Practical Training Fees.”
The proposed OPT regulation was submitted to OMB for regulatory review on August 20, 2026.
This development is potentially significant for hundreds of thousands of F-1 international students who rely on OPT or STEM OPT to obtain practical employment experience in the United States after completing their studies.
The actual text of the proposed OPT regulation has not yet been publicly released.
Until DHS publishes the proposal, several critical questions remain unanswered:
- How much would the new OPT fee be?
- Would the fee apply to the initial 12-month OPT period?
- Would STEM OPT extensions also be subject to the fee?
- Would the student or employer be responsible for paying it?
- Would the fee apply to every OPT application?
- Would any universities, employers, occupations or students qualify for exemptions?
- Would the rule apply only prospectively?
- When would any final fee take effect?
These questions cannot be answered definitively until the proposed regulation is released.
Reports Suggest a Possible $100,000 OPT Fee:
Recent reports have suggested that DHS may be considering an OPT application fee approaching $100,000.
If DHS actually proposes a fee of that magnitude, it would represent an unprecedented change to the economics of the OPT program.
However, students and employers should exercise caution when reading headlines about a “$100,000 OPT fee.”
There is currently no $100,000 OPT fee in effect:
The OPT regulation remains under OMB review, and its actual terms will not be known until DHS releases the proposed rule.
Why This Could Fundamentally Affect International Students:
OPT has long served as the primary bridge between an F-1 student’s academic education and professional employment in the United States.
Most eligible F-1 graduates can receive up to 12 months of post-completion OPT, while qualifying graduates with designated STEM degrees may obtain an additional 24-month STEM OPT extension.
For many international graduates, that employment period provides the opportunity to develop professional experience while an employer considers H-1B sponsorship.
A very large OPT fee could significantly disrupt that pathway.
International students could face a difficult progression:
F-1 Degree → OPT → STEM OPT → H-1B → Employment-Based Green Card.
If both OPT and cap-subject H-1B sponsorship become subject to six-figure government fees, employers may reconsider when and whether to recruit international graduates.
Potential Impact on U.S. Employers:
The combined effect of these initiatives could be particularly significant for employers in technology, engineering, finance, healthcare, scientific research and other industries that recruit graduates from U.S. universities.
Companies may need to evaluate immigration strategy much earlier in the recruitment process.
Depending on the employee’s qualifications and nationality, employers may increasingly consider alternatives such as:
- Cap-exempt H-1B employment;
- O-1 extraordinary ability classification;
- L-1 intracompany transfers;
- TN classification for qualifying Canadian and Mexican professionals;
- E-3 classification for qualifying Australian professionals;
- H-1B1 classification for qualifying Chilean and Singaporean professionals; and
- Earlier initiation of employment-based permanent residence.
No alternative classification should be treated as a substitute unless the individual independently satisfies its legal requirements.
H-1B and OPT Programs Are Facing Broader Regulatory Changes:
The proposed fees are part of a much broader period of regulatory activity affecting employment-based immigration and international students.
DHS has also been pursuing changes involving the H-1B program and rules affecting the period of authorized stay and compliance obligations for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors and I foreign media representatives.
Employers and international students therefore need to evaluate immigration planning as a long-term strategy rather than focusing only on the next visa filing.
Neither Proposal Means Students or Employers Must Pay These Fees Today:
This point is critical.
The $103,265 H-1B fee is presently a proposed rule, not a final filing requirement:
Similarly, the anticipated OPT fee remains at the regulatory-review stage and has not yet been officially proposed to the public.
Before either new fee can become effective, the government must proceed through the applicable federal rulemaking process.
For the H-1B proposal, DHS has provided a 30-day public comment period:
For the OPT proposal, once OMB review is completed and DHS publishes the proposed rule in the Federal Register, the public is expected to have an opportunity to submit comments before DHS considers issuing a final rule.
Proposed regulations can also change substantially between the proposed and final-rule stages and may face legal challenges.
What International Students Should Do Now:
F-1 students should not panic or abandon OPT plans based solely on reports of a possible $100,000 fee.
Students approaching graduation should continue maintaining F-1 status, working with their Designated School Officials, and preparing timely OPT or STEM OPT applications under the rules currently in effect.
Students should also begin discussing longer-term immigration strategies with prospective employers earlier than they may have done in the past.
What Employers Should Do Now:
Employers that regularly recruit F-1 students or sponsor H-1B workers should begin evaluating the potential financial and workforce-planning consequences of these proposals.
Companies should identify employees who may require future OPT, STEM OPT or H-1B sponsorship and determine whether alternative immigration strategies may be available.
Most importantly, employers should distinguish between rules that are currently effective and proposals that may or may not become final.
The Bottom Line:
The federal government is pursuing potentially historic increases in the cost of employing foreign professionals and international graduates.
DHS has formally proposed an additional $103,265 fee for cap-subject H-1B petitions, while a separate regulation concerning OPT fees is now undergoing OMB review.
Reports that the OPT fee could reach $100,000 are particularly significant, but the government has not yet publicly confirmed the amount or terms of the OPT proposal.
The next major development will be publication of the OPT proposed rule. That document should reveal the proposed fee, who would be responsible for paying it, which OPT applications would be covered, whether exemptions would exist, and the government’s legal and economic justification for the change.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. will continue monitoring the H-1B and OPT fee proposals and will provide updates as soon as DHS publishes additional rules, implementation guidance, or effective dates.
End of “Duration of Status”: F, J, and I Nonimmigrants Now Face Unlawful Presence Risk Starting September 15, 2026
For decades, international students, exchange visitors, and foreign media representatives were admitted to the United States for “duration of status” (D/S) — no fixed end date on their I-94. That era ends on September 15, 2026, when the Department of Homeland Security’s final rule eliminating D/S takes effect. The change carries a consequence many affected nonimmigrants have never had to think about: unlawful presence and the 3- and 10-year bars to reentry.
What changes on September 15?
F, J, and I nonimmigrants admitted on or after the effective date will receive an I-94 with a fixed Admit Until Date (AUD) — generally the program end date on the I-20 or DS-2019, the work assignment end date, or the EAD end date, plus a 30-day grace period, capped at four years. I visa holders get up to 240 days (90 days for most citizens of China).
Once that AUD passes, unlawful presence begins to accrue the very next day unless the individual has timely filed to extend or change status (Form I-539 or I-129) or has departed the United States. Accrue more than 180 days and depart, and a 3-year bar applies; more than one year, a 10-year bar.
Why this matters:
Under the old D/S framework, staying past an I-20 end date did not by itself start the unlawful presence clock. It began only after a USCIS officer found a status violation while adjudicating a benefit request, or an immigration judge made such a finding. The new rule puts F, J, and I nonimmigrants on the same footing as H-1B, L-1, and other fixed-period categories.
The finding-based trigger appears to survive as well. A student whose extension or OPT application is denied on the ground of a past status violation will begin accruing unlawful presence the day after the denial — and must depart immediately, with no grace period.
The transition period: significant uncertainty
Those already in the U.S. and maintaining status on September 15 are covered by transition rules. They may remain until their current I-20, DS-2019, or EAD end date (whichever is later), up to September 15, 2030, plus a 60-day (F) or 30-day (J) grace period.
What remains unclear is exactly when unlawful presence begins for this group — at the end of the transition period, only upon an official finding, or, for those already out of status on the effective date, possibly on September 15 itself. AILA has submitted questions to ICE SEVP that remain unanswered.
What you should do now:
- Know your dates. Confirm your program end date, EAD expiration, and applicable grace period.
- Act early. File extensions, changes of status, or OPT applications well before your authorized stay ends. A timely-filed application protects you from accruing unlawful presence while it is pending.
- Do not wait for clarity. Until DHS issues further guidance, the prudent approach is to assume the earliest possible accrual date and plan accordingly.
- Stay in status. Withdrawing from classes, dropping below a full course load, or working without authorization can now carry lasting reentry consequences.
If you are a student, exchange visitor, or employer sponsoring F, J, or I nonimmigrants, consult an immigration attorney before September 15 to review your situation.
Here is a publication-ready news item with a practical focus on what naturalization applicants should expect.
USCIS Reinforces Neighborhood Investigations for Certain U.S. Citizenship Applications
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is reinforcing its use of personal investigations, commonly known as “neighborhood investigations,” as an additional tool for reviewing certain applications for U.S. citizenship.
On August 25, 2026, USCIS issued a revised policy memorandum confirming that immigration officers may use neighborhood investigations to verify information submitted by applicants seeking naturalization.
The policy represents a significant change from the approach USCIS followed for decades, when neighborhood investigations were generally waived in routine naturalization cases.
USCIS first restored the practice in August 2025. According to the agency, neighborhood investigations conducted during the past year have assisted officers in determining whether applicants satisfy the legal requirements for naturalization, including requirements relating to good moral character.
What Is a Naturalization Neighborhood Investigation?
Federal immigration law gives USCIS authority to conduct investigations concerning individuals applying for naturalization.
A neighborhood investigation may involve USCIS gathering information from people or sources familiar with the applicant and the applicant’s activities during the relevant statutory period.
Depending upon the circumstances, an investigation could potentially involve inquiries concerning an applicant’s residence, employment, community activities or other matters relevant to naturalization eligibility.
The purpose is to independently verify information contained in the applicant’s Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, and supporting documentation.
Neighborhood Investigations Are Not Required in Every N-400 Case?
The new policy does not mean USCIS will conduct a neighborhood investigation for every naturalization applicant.
Neighborhood investigations remain a discretionary adjudication tool.
USCIS officers may determine, based upon the facts and circumstances of an individual application, whether additional investigation would assist in determining eligibility.
Many straightforward naturalization cases may therefore continue through the normal background-check, interview and adjudication process without a neighborhood investigation.
Nevertheless, applicants should understand that USCIS now considers these investigations an available and potentially useful part of the naturalization process.
Why Did USCIS Bring Back Neighborhood Investigations?
For decades, USCIS and its predecessor immigration agencies generally waived routine neighborhood investigations.
That changed in August 2025, when USCIS ended the longstanding general waiver and restored officers’ ability to use personal investigations more actively in naturalization adjudications.
The August 25, 2026 memorandum reinforces that approach.
USCIS reports that it has conducted a number of neighborhood investigations since the policy was restored and believes the investigations have helped officers evaluate whether applicants satisfy all statutory naturalization requirements.
The agency has specifically identified issues concerning an applicant’s character as one area where such investigations may assist adjudicators.
Good Moral Character Could Receive Greater Scrutiny:
One of the fundamental requirements for naturalization is demonstrating good moral character during the applicable statutory period and otherwise satisfying the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
For most naturalization applicants, the statutory good-moral-character period is generally the five years immediately preceding the N-400 filing, while certain applicants applying based on marriage to a U.S. citizen are generally subject to a three-year statutory period.
USCIS may also consider conduct outside the statutory period when relevant to determining an applicant’s present moral character.
Issues that may affect a naturalization application can include, depending upon the circumstances:
- Criminal arrests or convictions;
- False statements or misrepresentations;
- Failure to file or pay required taxes;
- Failure to provide required family support;
- Immigration violations;
- Inconsistencies concerning residence or employment;
- Selective Service issues;
- Unlawful acts; and
- Other conduct relevant to the statutory good-moral-character analysis.
A neighborhood investigation could potentially provide USCIS with information that confirms—or conflicts with—information provided on the N-400.
Applicants Should Make Sure the N-400 Is Completely Accurate:
The renewed emphasis on independent investigation makes accuracy on the naturalization application even more important.
Applicants should carefully review their N-400 before filing and again before attending the naturalization interview.
Particular attention should be paid to:
- Residence history: Every address should be accurately reported for the required period.
- Employment history: Employment, unemployment, self-employment and other relevant activities should be accurately disclosed.
- Travel history: Trips outside the United States should be properly reported, particularly where continuous residence or physical presence could become an issue.
- Criminal history: Arrests, citations, charges and other encounters with law enforcement should be carefully reviewed.
- Taxes: Applicants should ensure that required tax filings and outstanding tax obligations have been properly addressed.
- Family obligations: Child support, alimony and other court-ordered obligations may be relevant.
- Prior immigration filings: Information on the N-400 should be consistent with prior green card applications, visa petitions and other immigration records unless there is a legitimate explanation for a discrepancy.
What Happens If USCIS Contacts Neighbors, Employers or Other Individuals?
An investigation does not by itself mean that USCIS intends to deny the naturalization application.
USCIS may simply be attempting to independently verify facts relevant to eligibility.
Applicants should generally not attempt to coach neighbors, employers or other potential witnesses about what to tell USCIS.
Instead, applicants should ensure that the information they themselves provide to USCIS is truthful, complete and internally consistent.
If an applicant knows that a third party may provide information that conflicts with the N-400, the applicant should discuss the issue with immigration counsel before the naturalization interview rather than waiting for USCIS to discover the discrepancy.
Cases That Deserve Additional Review Before Filing:
The renewed investigation policy makes pre-filing legal review particularly important for applicants with potentially complicated histories.
Applicants should consider obtaining legal advice before filing an N-400 if they have issues involving criminal history, prior immigration violations, extended foreign travel, tax problems, marital-history concerns, child-support issues, prior inconsistent immigration filings, allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, or other circumstances that could affect good moral character or naturalization eligibility.
In some cases, filing an N-400 without first identifying a serious underlying immigration issue can have consequences beyond simply having the citizenship application denied.
Naturalization Is Becoming a More Evidence-Driven Process:
The return of neighborhood investigations reflects a broader trend toward greater verification of information submitted in immigration applications.
Naturalization applicants should therefore approach the N-400 as a serious legal filing rather than simply an administrative citizenship form.
The safest approach is to assume that every material statement made in an N-400 may be independently verified by USCIS.
Applicants should retain documentation supporting residence, employment, travel, taxes, marital history and other important eligibility requirements and should be prepared to explain any apparent inconsistencies at the naturalization interview.
The Bottom Line:
USCIS has confirmed that neighborhood investigations are once again an active, discretionary tool in naturalization adjudications.
They will not necessarily be conducted in every citizenship case. However, USCIS has indicated that its experience using the investigations since August 2025 has helped officers assess naturalization eligibility, including issues involving an applicant’s character.
For applicants, the message is straightforward: accuracy, consistency and complete disclosure are more important than ever.
Naturalization applicants should carefully review their entire immigration and personal history before filing Form N-400 and should address potentially problematic issues before—not after—USCIS identifies them.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. will continue monitoring USCIS naturalization policies, including the use of neighborhood investigations, good moral character standards and other changes affecting N-400 applicants.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Naturalization eligibility is highly fact-specific, and applicants with potentially complicated immigration, criminal, tax or other histories should obtain individualized legal advice before filing.
Federal Judge Strikes Down Immigrant Visa Processing Ban Affecting 75 Countries — What Applicants Need to Know
A major federal court ruling has struck down the Trump Administration’s policy that suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, potentially reopening immigrant visa processing for thousands of family- and employment-based applicants worldwide.
On August 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York vacated the Department of State policy, finding that the blanket suspension was “contrary to law” and exceeded the Secretary of State’s statutory authority.
The ruling is particularly significant for immigrant visa applicants from countries including Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria, Jamaica, Thailand, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Russia and dozens of others who had been affected by the policy since January 2026.
However, applicants should remain cautious. Separate reports indicate that some immigrant visa interviews have recently been cancelled or rescheduled while the Department of State provides consular officers with updated training concerning the government’s new public charge standards.
Background: DOS Suspended Immigrant Visa Issuance for 75 Countries:
On January 14, 2026, the Department of State announced that, effective January 21, 2026, immigrant visa issuance would be paused for nationals of 75 designated countries.
The State Department justified the policy as part of a broader review of screening and vetting procedures concerning applicants considered potentially likely to become a “public charge.”
The policy affected immigrant visas only. It did not impose the same blanket suspension on nonimmigrant visas such as H-1B, L-1, F-1, B-1/B-2 and other temporary visa classifications.
Under the policy, consular officers could continue conducting immigrant visa interviews and reviewing applicants for other grounds of inadmissibility. Where no other ground applied, affected cases could nevertheless be refused under the public charge ground and placed into Section 221(g) processing.
Federal Court Vacates the 75-Country Policy:
On August 21, 2026, the federal court ruled that the State Department could not categorically suspend immigrant visa issuance based upon nationality in the manner implemented by the policy.
The court ordered that the policy be set aside and vacated.
Significantly, the court also ordered that immigrant visa refusals based solely upon the 75-country policy be set aside and remanded for further proceedings.
The decision does not mean that every affected applicant is automatically entitled to an immigrant visa. Consular officers may continue evaluating each applicant under the normal requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, including public charge and other grounds of inadmissibility.
What the ruling eliminates is the categorical 75-country suspension itself.
Countries That Were Subject to the Suspension:
The 75 countries covered by the January policy were:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, the Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan and Yemen.
Important News for Nepali Immigrant Visa Applicants:
Nepal was one of the 75 countries covered by the suspension.
The August 21 court decision is therefore particularly important for Nepali applicants processing immigrant visas through the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, including qualifying family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa applicants.
Applicants whose cases were previously refused or placed on hold solely because of the 75-country policy should closely monitor their case status and any instructions from the National Visa Center or U.S. Embassy.
The court’s decision does not necessarily mean that every previously suspended case will immediately receive an interview or visa. Administrative implementation may take time, and applicants remain subject to all ordinary admissibility requirements.
Public Charge Is Still a Major Issue
The court struck down the nationality-based suspension, but it did not eliminate the public charge ground of inadmissibility itself.
This distinction is extremely important.
Consular officers can still determine, on an individualized basis, whether an immigrant visa applicant is inadmissible under INA §212(a)(4) because the applicant is likely to become a public charge.
Therefore, applicants should expect greater scrutiny of financial circumstances, particularly as the government implements its revised public charge policies.
Depending on the case, relevant considerations may include the applicant’s age, health, family circumstances, financial resources, education, employment prospects, skills and other factors bearing on financial self-sufficiency.
Applicants in family-sponsored cases should also make sure that required Affidavits of Support and financial evidence are complete and properly documented.
Separate Public Charge Training May Cause Interview Delays:
There is an additional complication.
Following the court ruling, immigrant visa applicants have reportedly experienced interview cancellations or postponements at some consular posts as the Department of State conducts new training for consular officers concerning public charge determinations.
Training was expected at many posts during the week of August 24, 2026.
Accordingly, applicants should distinguish between two separate developments:
First: The federal court has vacated the 75-country immigrant visa suspension.
Second: Individual immigrant visa cases may nevertheless experience temporary scheduling or processing delays associated with new public charge training and implementation.
Applicants should therefore carefully monitor communications from the National Visa Center and the particular U.S. embassy or consulate handling their cases.
What Happens to Prior 221(g) Refusals?
The court’s ruling is especially significant for applicants whose immigrant visas were refused solely because of the 75-country policy.
The court ordered refusals based solely upon the challenged policy to be set aside and remanded for further proceedings.
This does not necessarily mean USCIS or DOS will automatically approve the underlying case. Rather, the government must reconsider affected cases under the governing immigration laws without relying solely on the now-vacated nationality-based suspension.
Applicants with prior 221(g) refusals should therefore review the precise basis stated for the refusal.
If the refusal involved another independent ground of inadmissibility — such as criminal, fraud, unlawful presence, public charge based upon an individualized determination, or another statutory ground — the August 21 decision may not resolve that separate issue.
What Should Applicants Do Now?
Applicants from the affected countries should generally continue preparing their immigrant visa cases and comply with instructions from the National Visa Center and the relevant U.S. embassy or consulate.
Applicants who already have scheduled interviews should not assume that the appointment has been cancelled unless they receive official notification from the consular post.
Applicants should also be prepared for significantly greater attention to public charge issues. Financial sponsorship, employment prospects, income, assets and other evidence relevant to financial self-sufficiency should be carefully reviewed before the interview.
Applicants whose cases were previously refused under 221(g) because of the 75-country suspension should consider obtaining legal advice concerning whether the August 21 ruling affects their particular case and whether follow-up with the consular post is appropriate.
The Bottom Line:
The August 21, 2026 federal court decision is a major development for immigrant visa applicants from the 75 affected countries.
The court has vacated the blanket nationality-based immigrant visa suspension and ordered refusals based solely upon that policy to be set aside.
However, this does not eliminate public charge screening and does not guarantee immediate visa issuance.
The next major issue will be how quickly the Department of State implements the court’s ruling at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide and how the Department’s newly trained consular officers apply the revised public charge standards to individual immigrant visa applicants.
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
