A US district court has rejected a plea for a temporary restraining order to postpone the implementation of immigration fee hikes set to take effect from April 1. The plaintiffs, including ITServe Alliance, the American Immigrant Investor Alliance (AIIA), and a Canadian EB-5 investor, had sought to delay the imposition of the revised fees until the lawsuit is resolved.
As a result, applicants, including American employers, will now be required to bear the increased visa and immigration fees, which span a broad range of applications. However, the legal proceedings are ongoing.
According to a TOI report, the lawsuit, initiated by ITServe Alliance and AIIA, challenges the substantial fee hikes in EB-5 visa fees and the additional asylum fee for employers hiring H-1B workers, which were introduced without proper rule-making procedures. AIIA remains optimistic about the lawsuit’s prospects, noting that the court did not oppose their main argument and believes they have a strong chance of success.
Effective April 1, American employers will submit H-1B cap applications for selected beneficiaries from the recent lottery. USCIS has clarified that applications submitted on or after April 1 must include the updated fee amounts to be accepted. The application fee has risen by 70% to $780, with employers now subject to a new Asylum Program fee of $600 at the initial application stage, and when sponsoring employment-based green cards.
(Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates)
In her order, Judge Charlotte N Sweeney stated that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate imminent, significant, and irreparable harm if the fee increases were implemented from April 1. AIIA acknowledges the court’s decision but maintains that the increased fees would impose substantial financial burdens, particularly on EB-5 investors.
The USCIS announced significant fee increases for EB-5 investors, with initial I-526 petitions now costing $11,160, a 204% hike, and I-829 application fees rising to $9,535, a 154% increase.
Matthew T. Galati, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment with the court’s decision, telling TOI, ” 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.”
