FGI UPDATES: THIS WEEK’S SUMMARY OF US IMMIGRATION NEWS

September 18, 2026

DHS Optional Practical Training Fee Proposal Clears Federal Review

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed creating a new fee for the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which allows F-1 students to work in the United States after completing their studies. As of September 11, 2026, the proposal had completed review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), clearing the way for possible publication in the Federal Register. However, no new fee is currently in effect, and reports of a potential fee as high as $100,000 remain unconfirmed until DHS publishes the official proposal.

Key Points

Federal Review Completed: The OMB has finished reviewing the proposed DHS regulation, allowing the proposal to move to the next stage of the rulemaking process. This represents a significant procedural milestone but does not mean the new fees are currently in effect.
New OPT Fees Proposed: The regulation would impose additional fees on OPT employment authorization applications filed by F-1 students. While exact figures have not been disclosed, the proposed fees are expected to be substantial.
Details Not Yet Available: The specific structure, amount, and scope of the proposed fees will not be known until the rule is officially published in the Federal Register. Stakeholders therefore have limited information at this stage regarding the proposal’s practical impact.
Public Comment Process Required: Once published, the proposal will be subject to a public comment period that is expected to last 30 or 60 days. During this time, employers, universities, students, and other interested parties will have a chance to give feedback.
No Immediate Implementation: The regulation cannot take effect until DHS reviews public comments and publishes a final rule. Any implementation date will be announced as part of the final regulation.

What Employers Need to Know

Financial Planning: Employers that rely on OPT workers should evaluate how a substantial fee could affect hiring and recruitment strategies. Businesses may also need to consider whether increased costs would affect their ability to retain international graduates.
Operational Uncertainty: Because the official proposal has not yet been published, employers should avoid making long-term decisions based only on speculation. Companies should continue using their current immigration compliance and hiring procedures unless new requirements are formally adopted.
Coordination With Counsel: Human resources and legal departments should work closely with immigration counsel to monitor the proposal. Early preparation could help employers respond more efficiently if new fees or related requirements are ultimately implemented.

Looking Ahead

Federal Register Publication: The next major step is publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. The official notice should explain the proposed fee amounts, affected parties, implementation details, and public comment deadlines.
Possible Economic Effects: If significant fees are adopted, industries that depend heavily on OPT workers, including technology and research, could face higher hiring costs. This could affect recruitment strategies, labor-market competition, and employers’ ability to retain international graduates.
Potential Changes to the Proposal: The final rule may differ from the initial proposal after the government reviews public comments. Stakeholders should continue monitoring the federal rulemaking process for revisions, additional requirements, or changes to the proposed fees.

The DHS proposal represents a possible major change to the financial and administrative structure of the OPT program. Although it has passed an important regulatory review stage, it has not yet become law, and no new fee is currently enforceable. Employers, students, and academic institutions should rely on official government information, maintain existing procedures for now, and prepare to evaluate the proposal once it is formally published.

Federal Court Blocks DHS Rule Limiting Length of Stay for International Students and Exchange Visitors

A federal court has temporarily blocked a (DHS) regulation that would have replaced the long-standing “duration of status” policy for certain nonimmigrants with fixed admission periods. The rule would have limited F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors to four-year periods of stay and foreign journalists on I visas to 240 days, after which extensions would have been required. The court found that DHS likely failed to adequately justify the regulation and comply with key administrative law requirements, preventing the rule from taking effect while the legal challenge proceeds. As a result, the existing framework allowing eligible students and exchange visitors to remain in the United States for the duration of their approved programs remains in place for now.

Key Points

Court Blocks Implementation: A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the DHS rule from taking effect on September 15, 2026. The injunction preserves the current immigration framework while the litigation moves forward.
Proposed Fixed Stay Limits: The regulation would have generally limited F-1 students, professors, researchers, and J-1 exchange visitors to four years of stay in the United States. Foreign journalists holding I visas would have been limited to 240-day admission periods.
Current Duration-of-Status System Preserved: Under the existing system, many international students and certain exchange visitors are admitted for the duration of their authorized programs rather than for a fixed period of time. The court’s order allows this system to remain in effect while the case is pending.
Administrative Procedure Act Concerns: The court determined that DHS likely failed to adequately explain the need for the regulation, sufficiently address public comments, and consider less restrictive alternatives. The judge also questioned the agency’s rationale connecting the rule to national security objectives.
Higher Education Opposition: Universities, higher education associations, and international education advocates argued that the rule would create uncertainty and could negatively affect international enrollment and academic programs. Concerns were particularly significant for students in programs that commonly exceed four years, including many doctoral degree programs.

What Employers Need to Know

No Immediate Change in Status Rules: Employers that hire F-1 students, including those participating in practical training programs, may continue to rely on the existing duration-of-status framework. The blocked regulation does not currently alter employment authorization eligibility or related immigration processes.
Reduced Near-Term Uncertainty: The injunction temporarily eliminates the possibility that affected foreign nationals would need to seek extensions after fixed periods of stay. This helps employers maintain workforce planning without immediate concerns about new extension requirements.
Universities and Employers Remain Interested Stakeholders: Educational institutions and employers often depend on access to international talent. Any future changes to admission periods or extension procedures could directly affect recruiting, retention, and workforce development strategies.
Continued Monitoring Is Important: Although the rule has been blocked, the litigation is ongoing. Employers should monitor future court rulings and potential government actions that could affect international students and exchange visitors.

Looking Ahead

Ongoing Legal Developments: The case remains before the courts, and subsequent rulings will determine if the proposed regulation is eventually implemented, revised, or permanently struck down. Stakeholders must await further judicial action to understand the long-term status of these international student visa policies.
Institutional Impact: Universities and organizations that host these students should prepare for potential policy shifts that could affect how they recruit and retain international talent. Future adjustments to admission or stay procedures will require swift updates to current institutional compliance and international student advising protocols.
Strategic Planning: Both educational institutions and employers need to monitor updates to ensure they are prepared for any changes that might arise from future court decisions or government policy updates. Maintaining flexibility in the workforce and enrollment planning will be crucial for navigating potential long-term changes to immigration status rules.

The court’s injunction provides essential, temporary stability by maintaining the existing duration-of-status rules for F-1 international students. This ruling allows students and employers to continue their activities without the immediate disruption of new, restrictive stay requirements. However, because this legal battle is still active, the future landscape for international student employment remains in flux, necessitating ongoing vigilance from all affected stakeholders to prepare for potential future developments.

DOL Proposes Modernization of the U.S. Department of Labor’s PERM Program

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is initiating a rulemaking process to update the Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) system, which employers use to certify that hiring a foreign worker will not displace qualified U.S. applicants. The proposed modernization aims to refine recruitment standards, bolster protections for domestic workers, and enhance the overall administration and efficiency of the labor certification process. As this initiative moves through the formal regulatory stages, including opportunities for public feedback, it remains essential for stakeholders to understand that current requirements persist until any new regulations are finalized and implemented.

Key Points

Modernizing Recruitment Standards: The Department of Labor intends to update the minimum requirements employers must adhere to during the PERM recruitment phase. These revisions are designed to align the program with contemporary practices in an increasingly digital labor market.
Strengthening U.S. Worker Protections: The proposed rule seeks to enhance the regulatory framework intended to safeguard U.S. workers throughout the certification process. These strengthened measures aim to ensure that the employment of foreign nationals does not negatively impact the wages or working conditions of similarly situated U.S. personnel.
Enhancing Program Administration: The DOL is exploring strategies to improve the operational efficiency of the PERM program. Depending on the final regulatory outcome, stakeholders may face adjusted procedures designed to streamline the certification process.
Ongoing Regulatory Process: The proposed changes must navigate the standard federal rulemaking process before becoming effective. The agency will review comments, and final requirements may deviate from the initial proposal.

What Employers Need to Know

Potential Changes to Recruitment Practices: Employers utilizing the PERM program should anticipate possible modifications to their recruitment protocols and documentation requirements. Companies are advised to evaluate whether their current internal workflows will remain sufficient under updated standards.
Evaluation of Current PERM Pipelines: It is recommended that employers thoroughly assess current PERM cases, anticipated filings, and long-term green card sponsorship objectives. Adjustments to recruitment rules may necessitate changes in case preparation, timelines, and broader compliance strategies.
Importance of Robust Compliance Documentation: Maintaining comprehensive records to demonstrate adherence to recruitment mandates and the fair consideration of U.S. workers remains critical. Early and ongoing coordination between human resources departments, legal counsel, and immigration experts will be vital for mitigating potential disruptions.
Status of Current Regulations: The Department of Labor’s announcement does not immediately alter existing PERM requirements. Employers should continue to operate under current regulations until such time as a final rule is formally enacted.

Looking Ahead

Public Feedback and Regulatory Refinement: Following the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, stakeholders will have the opportunity to submit formal comments to the DOL. The agency may subsequently revise the proposal based on this feedback before issuing the final rule.
Impact on Long-term Immigration Planning: Future updates to recruitment standards could significantly influence how employers structure permanent residence sponsorship for their employees. These changes might result in varying documentation requirements, processing timelines, or compliance considerations.
Operational and Administrative Implications: While modernized procedures aim to enhance consistency and efficiency, they may initially impose additional preparation burdens on employers during the transition. The long-term impact on the program’s complexity remains contingent on the specific details of the finalized regulations.
Need for Continued Vigilance: Employers are encouraged to actively monitor official DOL updates and the progress of the proposed rulemaking. The precise timing and ultimate effect of these regulatory changes remain subject to the ongoing administrative process.

Court Ruling Sets Aside Rule Ending Automatic H-4 Work Permit Extensions, But Relief Is Limited to the Named Plaintiffs

Correction, September 18, 2026: An earlier version of this section described the court’s ruling as restoring automatic H-4 EAD extensions generally. The court’s order grants relief only to the seven named plaintiffs. The section below has been corrected.

On September 11, 2026, a federal judge in the Central District of California (Doe v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 8:26-cv-00060, Judge David O. Carter) ruled against a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) interim final rule that had eliminated automatic extensions for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) held by H-4 visa holders, who are spouses of H-1B workers. The court found that DHS likely failed to justify skipping the notice-and-comment process ordinarily required for a rule of this kind. However, the court’s order grants relief only to the seven named plaintiffs in the case. It is not a nationwide injunction and does not restore automatic EAD extensions for H-4 holders generally. DHS, meanwhile, has already obtained White House approval, as of September 9, 2026, to issue a final rule codifying the same policy change, so the practical benefit of this ruling beyond the seven plaintiffs may be short-lived.

Key Points

Limited, Plaintiff-Specific Relief: The court set the rule aside only as applied to the seven named plaintiffs in Doe v. DHS. It does not restore automatic EAD extensions for H-4 holders as a group and provides no nationwide relief.
Narrow Practical Impact: Because the ruling reaches only the plaintiffs in the case, most H-4 EAD holders are not affected by it and remain subject to the rule as written unless and until a broader court order or further agency action changes that.
Legal Basis for the Ruling: The court determined that the interim final rule, which was issued without the typical notice-and-comment period required for major regulatory changes, was procedurally flawed. Setting the rule aside for the plaintiffs does not resolve the underlying question of whether DHS can eliminate the extensions through a properly conducted rulemaking.
DHS Already Pursuing a Permanent Rule: DHS has obtained White House approval, as of September 9, 2026, for a final rule that would codify the same change through notice-and-comment rulemaking, which could apply broadly once finalized regardless of the outcome of this case.

What Employers Need to Know

Verification of Employment Eligibility: Because the ruling applies only to the seven named plaintiffs, employers should not assume that H-4 EAD holders generally are eligible for automatic extensions. Confirm an employee’s specific status and current EAD validity dates before relying on any extension.
Updated Compliance Training: Human resources departments should update internal guidance to make clear that this ruling does not change the default treatment of H-4 EAD renewals for the workforce generally, and should flag that a broader rule change may still be finalized.
Ongoing Coordination with Counsel: Given the narrow scope of relief and DHS’s pending final rule, employers should maintain open lines of communication with immigration counsel to confirm how, if at all, any individual employee’s case is affected.

Looking Ahead

Potential Government Response: DHS may appeal this decision, or may proceed directly to finalizing the rule for which it has already obtained White House approval, which would apply beyond the seven plaintiffs in this case.
Continued Litigation: This ruling is one step in ongoing litigation over automatic EAD extensions for H-4 visa holders. Additional plaintiffs or a broader class action could seek wider relief in the future.
Strategic Workforce Planning: Organizations that rely on H-4 visa holders should plan on the assumption that the rule ending automatic extensions remains in effect for their workforce, apart from the seven named plaintiffs in this case, and should watch for DHS’s forthcoming final rule.

This ruling is a narrow, plaintiff-specific win rather than a broad restoration of automatic EAD extensions for H-4 visa holders. Employers should not treat it as reinstating the prior extension policy for their workforce generally. With DHS already positioned to finalize a rule codifying the same change, both employers and affected employees should expect continued uncertainty and should coordinate closely with counsel on any individual cases.

Department of Labor Suspends Cognizant PERM Filings Amidst Fraud Investigation

The U.S. Department of Labor has temporarily suspended the ability of the IT services firm Cognizant to file applications for permanent labor certification, known as PERM, as part of a broader investigation into alleged fraud within the H-1B and PERM visa programs. This suspension acts as a significant barrier for the company, as PERM filings are a crucial step in the process of transitioning H-1B visa holders to legal permanent residency, commonly known as a green card. While the investigation proceeds, affected employees and the company face substantial uncertainty regarding the status and future timeline of these green card applications.

Key Points

Administrative Suspension: The U.S. Department of Labor has officially suspended Cognizant from submitting new permanent labor certification applications. This action follows the initiation of an investigation into the firm’s compliance with employment-based visa programs.
Purpose of PERM Filings: The PERM process is a mandatory initial step for companies seeking to sponsor foreign workers for permanent residency. By freezing these filings, the government has directly halted the primary pathway for Cognizant’s H-1B employees to achieve permanent status.
Scope of Investigation: The probe focuses on suspected misuse of the H-1B visa program and allegations of labor-related misconduct. Authorities are examining whether the company’s practices have unfairly impacted domestic workers or violated existing immigration regulations.
Status of Current Applications: The suspension generally targets new filings rather than necessarily invalidating those already in progress, though it creates a major hurdle for the company’s long-term immigration strategy. Affected individuals face heightened uncertainty regarding the potential for delays or complications in their ongoing green card efforts.

What Employers Need to Know

Heightened Regulatory Scrutiny: This action signals that federal agencies are intensifying their focus on the recruitment and hiring practices of companies that heavily utilize H-1B workers. Employers should ensure their own internal compliance mechanisms are robust and regularly audited to avoid similar scrutiny.
Impact on Talent Retention: For companies dependent on foreign talent, having a stable path to permanent residency is a key factor in employee retention and satisfaction. If this suspension remains in place, it could significantly hamper Cognizant’s ability to retain highly skilled international employees who are seeking long-term stability.
Risk of Operational Disruption: Regulatory investigations can lead to broader legal and operational consequences that extend well beyond the immediate suspension of filings. Businesses should be prepared for potential disruptions, including increased legal costs and the need for revised workforce management strategies.

Looking Ahead

Outcome of the Investigation: The duration and result of the investigation will determine if the suspension is lifted, extended, or leads to further penalties. Stakeholders should monitor official updates from the Department of Labor to understand when and how the firm might be permitted to resume its filings.
Broader Industry Implications: This probe could serve as a precursor to wider, industry-wide crackdowns on H-1B and PERM program abuses by other major IT employers. Companies in the sector should proactively review their visa sponsorship processes to anticipate and mitigate similar regulatory risks.
Impact on Policy and Compliance: The resolution of this case may influence future government policies regarding foreign worker sponsorship and visa oversight. Continued legal pressure could result in stricter standards for how companies justify the need for foreign hires over domestic workers.

The Department of Labor’s decision to suspend Cognizant’s PERM filings highlights the increasing federal emphasis on policing employment-based immigration programs. While the investigation remains in its active stages, the impact on the company’s ability to transition its H-1B workforce to permanent residency is substantial. As federal scrutiny intensifies, both Cognizant and other firms utilizing similar visa structures face a critical need to prioritize rigorous compliance to navigate the potential for ongoing regulatory disruptions.

U.S. Immigration Alerts