Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Understanding the Proposed H-1B Filing Fee Changes and the Impact on Workforce Planning

Client Alert
August 27, 2026

On August 25, 2026, the Trump administration published a proposed rule to impose another $103,265 payment clause on any new H-1B visa “cap-subject” petitions. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have given agencies a 30-day period to comment.

If implemented: Which Employers will be Affected by the $103,265 payment?

  • New H-1B Cap Subject Petitions for Overseas Beneficiaries: Affected.
  • New H-1B Cap Subject Petitions for Beneficiaries within the U.S., i.e. “change of status” petitions including OPT/F-1 to H-1B petitions: Affected.
  • OPT to H-1B New Cap Subject Petition: Affected.
  • All future H-1B lottery petitions: Affected.

Who will Not Be Affected by the $103,265 payment?

  • Current H-1B visa holders with the Same Employer: Not Affected. Cap Exempt valid visas and approved petitions may remain unaffected.
  • H-1B Future Extensions and Renewals with the Same Employer: Not Affected.
  • H-1B Portability/Change of Employer: Not clear guidance. If “cap exempt” Not Affected.
  • “Cap-Exempt H-1B New Petitions” related to Universities, Hospitals or Non-Profits: Not Affected.

You can watch BMD Immigration Member Duriya Dhinojwala's interview with NDTV, which is India’s most watched T.V. channel, on YouTube here. She discusses the impact on the future of the H-1B visas if this fee is not stayed by the federal courts. The interview starts at the 3-minute mark.

Contact Duriya Dhinojwala with additional questions and information on this proposed ruling at ddhinojwala@bmdllc.com or 330.253.5790.

ImmigrationWorkforce Enforcement of Immigration LawsH-1BH1B VisaVisa
Client Alert

Recent HIPAA Breach Settlements - Lessons Learned

June 19, 2023According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the consequences for providers may include settlements of $30,000 to $240,000. OCR recently released two settlements for improper breaches of protected health information (PHI) that are good examples of the major monetary penalties that can result from common HIPAA mistakes.Client Alert

Supreme Court Issues Major False Claims Act Decision

June 5, 2023Client Alert

Telehealth Flexibility Updates: HIPAA, DEA, and CMS

May 12, 2023The Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) officially ended on May 11, 2023. But what does that mean for telehealth, a field that expanded exponentially during the PHE? Fortunately, many of the flexibilities will remain intact, at least temporarily. This client alert presents a brief overview of the timelines that providers need to follow, but for a more comprehensive review of telehealth flexibilities and when they will endClient Alert, Multimedia

WEBINAR SERIES RECAP | Ending the Public Health Emergency + Post-Pandemic Check-Up

May 10, 2023Some may take the position that the rest of the country already returned to a new “normal” following the COVID-19 pandemic.  But healthcare providers continue to implement COVID protocols and navigate the ever-changing healthcare regulations at both the federal and state levels.  It is important for healthcare providers to take time for a “Healthcare Check-Up” with the start of 2023 and the ending of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”).Client Alert

Sharp Rise in False Claims Act Cases - Navigating the FCA Waters

May 5, 2023Recently, on April 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the FCA’s scienter, or mental state, requirement. To prove violation of the FCA, the statute requires that a defendant “knowingly” file false claims for payment. The term “knowingly” is defined within the statute to mean a person that acts with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Circuit courts are split on how to interpret and apply the knowledge element of the FCA, and based on the Supreme Court’s decision, there will be a large impact on healthcare defendants and their businesses as well as anyone who contracts with, or receives money from, a federal program. A broader interpretation of the FCA would unnecessarily target and stifle healthcare, and other businesses, for simple errors in daily operations. This goes against the intended application of the FCA, which was to prevent fraudulent activity.
Older posts
Newer posts