The Immigration Brief Podcast | The $100,000 OPT Question for Students and Employers

The transcript version of our podcast covering key U.S. immigration developments, policy changes, and their practical implications for employers and international talent. Join our Immigration News Digest Newsletter for more immigration updates.

By David Fullmer & Naveen Rahman Bhora

🎧 Available on YouTube & Spotify

In this edition of The Immigration Brief, WR Immigration Partners David Fullmer and Naveen Rahman Bhora discuss the proposed $70,000 fee tied to Optional Practical Training (OPT), along with an additional $30,000 fee for subsequent OPT recommendations. They explore who may bear these costs, how the proposal could affect current and future OPT participants, and the implications for international students, universities, and employers. The discussion also covers employer recruitment strategies, potential cost-sharing arrangements, and practical steps for HR and Global Mobility teams to prepare for possible changes.

Question 1: What is the proposed $70,000 OPT fee, and how would the additional $30,000 fee work?

Response: The proposed DHS rule would require universities or schools to pay an initial $70,000 fee for the first OPT recommendation made for an F-1 student, covering both pre-completion and post-completion OPT. Each subsequent recommendation for that student would carry an additional $30,000 fee, including STEM OPT extensions. The proposal is not currently in effect, and the existing OPT program remains unchanged.

Question 2: Would the $70,000 fee apply again if a student pursues another degree or receives a STEM OPT extension?

Response: No. Under the proposal, the $70,000 fee would apply only once per student, with subsequent OPT recommendations subject to the $30,000 fee. This includes STEM OPT extensions and new OPT periods following higher-level degrees, such as a master’s or PhD. Changing employers during an existing STEM OPT period would not trigger another fee, although the student must still report the change and submit an updated Form I-983. The proposal also does not provide for refunds if a student loses their job after receiving OPT authorization.

Question 3: Who would be responsible for paying the proposed OPT fees, and could the costs be passed on to students?

Response: Universities would be primarily responsible for paying the fees when making OPT recommendations. However, the proposal leaves open the possibility of passing these costs on to students, employers, or the wider student population. Universities could increase tuition or introduce additional program fees, while employers might cover the costs for particularly valuable or highly skilled candidates.

Question 4: How could the proposed fees affect international students and universities?

Response: The proposed fees raise concerns about fairness and access to OPT opportunities. DHS estimates that only around 20% of F-1 students remain in the United States to pursue OPT, meaning that spreading the costs across all international students could require many to pay for a benefit they never use. Alternatively, charging individual students could disadvantage those who cannot afford the substantial fees. Universities may also need to reconsider their international student recruitment and fee structures.

Question 5: Would students already participating in OPT have to pay the proposed fee if the rule takes effect?

Response: Under David’s interpretation of the proposal, students already participating in post-completion OPT would not immediately owe the $70,000 fee. However, their first OPT recommendation after the rule takes effect, such as a STEM OPT extension, could trigger the initial $70,000 payment. Employers may be more willing to cover this cost for existing employees whose skills and value to the business are already established. This interpretation remains subject to clarification in any final rule.

Question 6: What should employers and Global Mobility teams consider when recruiting F-1 students and managing their existing OPT workforce?

Response: Employers should continue university recruitment while monitoring the proposal, as it is not yet final and may not be implemented. Global Mobility and Talent Acquisition teams should review employees currently on OPT or STEM OPT, track upcoming extension deadlines, and estimate potential costs. Employers should also consider whether they would cover these fees for employees they wish to retain, coordinating with HR, recruiting, finance, and immigration counsel.

Question 7: Are there alternative immigration strategies for employers seeking to retain international talent if the proposed OPT fees take effect?

Response: One potential alternative for certain employers is to hire an OPT or STEM OPT employee through an affiliated business unit outside the United States, with the possibility of transferring them back later through an L-1 visa. This could provide another pathway for employees who are not selected in the H-1B lottery. However, L-1 eligibility requires a qualifying corporate relationship, qualifying employment abroad, and satisfaction of the applicable managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge requirements. Employers should evaluate this strategy with immigration counsel on a case-by-case basis.

About the Authors

David Fullmer is a Partner in WR Immigration’s Los Angeles office with nearly 30 years of experience advising employers, entrepreneurs, and individuals on business and investment-based immigration. He focuses on corporate immigration strategy, global mobility, and employment-based immigration, helping organizations develop practical solutions for international workforce needs. He is ranked by Chambers and Partners and previously served as Chair of the Immigration Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.

Naveen Rahman Bhora is a Partner at WR Immigration and manages the firm’s New York office. She advises individuals, businesses, multinational corporations, hospitals, and universities on employment-based immigration, with particular expertise in intracompany transfers, extraordinary ability visas, and immigration options for physicians and researchers. She has been recognized by Who’s Who Legal and The Best Lawyers in America® and is an active member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).