.jpeg)
Two proposed rules are on track to be finalized over the next several months: a Department of Labor rule sharply raising prevailing wages, and a Department of Homeland Security rule replacing the open-ended student “duration of status” framework with fixed admission periods. Two more rules are expected: one further restricting H-1B specialty occupation standards and third-party placements, and another curtailing Optional Practical Training. In parallel, adjudications have already tightened. Denial rates for EB-1 extraordinary ability and EB-2 national interest waivers rose meaningfully in the fourth quarter of FY 2025, the redesigned Form I-129 is generating a new wave of wage-level RFEs, and premium processing is missing its 15-day commitment without refunds. The combined effect for our clients is more friction, more cost, and a higher rate of preventable denials.
DOL prevailing wage rule (proposed March 2026)
The Department of Labor proposed a rule in March that would raise required minimum salaries for H-1B workers and employment-based green card beneficiaries by roughly 21% to 33%, varying with the position’s experience level. The rule applies to both H-1B sponsorship and to the underlying PERM and direct EB-2/EB-3 process. The comment period closes in late May. We expect DOL to push toward finalization by the end of 2026 or early in 2027.
Why it matters: for many employers, the wage hike will reshape whether sponsorship is economically viable, especially for early-career hires. Smaller employers will feel it first. Cases currently filed at the lower end of Level 1 or Level 2 are the most exposed and warrant a fresh look before the rule is finalized.
DHS student fixed-admission rule (proposed August 2025)
DHS proposed a rule last August that would replace the long-standing “duration of status” framework for F-1 students with fixed periods of admission. Extensions beyond that period would require affirmative government approval rather than continued enrollment alone. The rule is expected to be finalized in the near term. Students enrolled in programs longer than four years, including most doctoral candidates and many dual-degree programs, are the most exposed. The rule also introduces a real risk for applicants weighing U.S. study against alternatives in Canada, the UK, Germany, and elsewhere: a student who does not finish on schedule could be required to leave before completing the degree.
A revived H-1B restriction rule
The administration is expected to propose a new H-1B rule that reaches back to the goals of its October 2020 rule. That earlier rule was blocked because it bypassed notice-and-comment rulemaking and was found likely to violate the Administrative Procedure Act. This time, the rule is expected to move through the full APA process. The likely targets are familiar: a narrower definition of specialty occupation, tighter constraints on placement at third-party worksites, and changes that make it harder for recent graduates and certain experience profiles to qualify.
OPT and STEM OPT restrictions
A separate rule is anticipated that would end or significantly limit Optional Practical Training. Under current rules, OPT permits 12 months of work in the student’s field of study, and STEM OPT adds an additional 24 months for science, technology, engineering, and math graduates. The policy aim, by the administration’s own framing, is to reduce the pipeline from U.S. universities into H-1B status. International students make up an estimated 75% to 80% of full-time graduate enrollment in AI-related fields, so the practical reach of this rule is significant.
The $100,000 H-1B entry fee
Since September 2025, USCIS has imposed a $100,000 fee on the entry of new H-1B visa holders. Two patterns are emerging. First, some properly filed cases that include the fee are sitting unadjudicated, even on premium processing. Second, the agency has demanded the fee in cases where it does not apply. Practitioners are now routinely including the agency’s own guidance with filings as a defensive measure. We expect this fee to remain a flashpoint until either internal training or litigation forces consistency.
Premium processing delays without refunds
The 15-day premium processing commitment is being missed with regularity. USCIS’s position is that refunds issue only once a case is finally adjudicated, which leaves petitioners holding the fee while still inside the agency’s queue. For cases where the 240-day work authorization on a timely filed extension is running out, the practical lever is often mandamus litigation rather than further engagement with the service center.
The new Form I-129: a built-in wage-level conflict
The revised Form I-129 (edition 02/27/26) added five new questions, numbered 7 through 11, that require petitioners to state under penalty of perjury the position’s education level, qualifying fields of study, years of experience, special skills, and supervisory scope. These answers were added through the rulemaking around the weighted H-1B lottery but apply to every H-1B petition on the new form, including extensions, amendments, changes of employer, and cap-exempt filings.
The structural problem is that the answers most useful to the specialty occupation argument, which emphasizes complexity, depth of expertise, and advanced qualifications, are the same answers that USCIS is now mapping onto DOL’s prevailing wage level framework. Adjudicators are using those answers to argue that the certified LCA wage level should have been higher, and issuing wage-level RFEs on that basis. Whether USCIS has jurisdiction to second-guess a certified LCA in this manner is itself contestable. In the meantime, petitioners need to calibrate Questions 7 through 11 against the LCA before filing, not after the RFE arrives.
Rising denial rates at the high end
Recent National Foundation for American Policy analysis shows that USCIS denial rates rose sharply in the fourth quarter of FY 2025 in two categories that are supposed to be reserved for the most highly accomplished individuals in the world: EB-1 extraordinary ability and EB-2 national interest waivers. That trend is consistent with what we are seeing across our own EB-1A docket, including denials that ignore qualifying evidence, apply unannounced novel standards, and rest on conclusory final merits determinations. These are exactly the patterns the APA was designed to police.
Practical takeaways
The administration’s objective is to limit the H-1B category and reduce the pipeline of foreign students who enter it, and it is pursuing that objective through both rulemaking and enforcement. DOL’s Project Firewall, the redesigned I-129, and the $100,000 fee are not separate stories. They are part of a coherent strategy whose practical effect, even before any of the proposed rules are finalized, is to make sponsorship slower, more expensive, and more uncertain.
That said, the rulemaking process and the federal courts are working as they were designed to. Proposed rules can be challenged in comments. Final rules can be challenged under the APA. Individual denials, particularly in EB-1A and NIW, are vulnerable to arbitrary-and-capricious review. We will continue to use every appropriate avenue, administrative and judicial, on behalf of our clients.
