A US district court has reportedly denied a request for a “temporary restraining order” that was meant to postpone the immigration fee hikes
A US district court has reportedly denied a request for a “temporary restraining order” that was meant to postpone the immigration fee hikes coming into effect starting April 1. The plaintiffs had demanded that the imposition of the revised fees be deferred. It is pending disposal of the lawsuit by the court. The litigation, however, is set to continue.
Applicants, including American employers, will now be required to bear the higher visa, as well as other immigration fees. These have been included in various applications.
What is the lawsuit about?
ITServe Alliance, the American Immigrant Investor Alliance (AIIA), and a Canadian EB-5 investor filed the lawsuit, which particularly questioned the increased hikes in EB-5 visa fees, as well as the “arbitrary” asylum fee that is required to be paid by employers hiring H-1B workers. According to AIIA, “The silver lining in this story is that the government did not oppose, and the court did not opine on our main argument in the lawsuit, thus we still believe that we have a strong chance of ultimately winning this suit.” American employers will be required to file H-1B cap applications for beneficiaries who are selected in the recently concluded lottery, starting April 1.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has said, “All applications marked on or after April 1, must include the updated fee amounts or they will not be accepted.” The fee has now increased to $780 by 70%.
Employers who are hiring H-1B workers will also have to pay a new Asylum Program fee of $600 during the initial application. This will have to be paid also while they sponsor the employment-based green card.
According to AIIA, “Despite our attorneys’ best efforts, the court disagreed with our argument that the increased fees would cause irreparable harm between April 1st and post-trial. The judge reasoned that the financial burden on EB-5 investors, though substantial, wasn’t great enough compared to the investment already made and the harm wasn’t immediate since deadlines to file applications were months away. Stopping the fee increase would also cost USCIS millions daily.”
Matthew T. Galati, one of the attorneys representing the lawsuit, told Times Of India, “While we were disappointed that the judge did not give our plaintiffs and millions of affected immigrants what we asked for, we do wish to note that the court specifically left open — for deciding later in this suit — our most important arguments that the ‘Fee Rule’ is unlawful. In my opinion, the decision seemed to be more about timing than the substance of the arguments we raised. We look forward to continuing the fight, on behalf of immigrants and their sponsors, to ensure that USCIS is held accountable in following its clear mandates from the United States Congress.”
