What's Happening?
A federal judge in Colorado has invalidated the steep fee increases announced by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. The ruling, issued on November
12, 2025, requires USCIS to revert the fees to their pre-2024 levels, marking a significant victory for EB-5 investors. This decision is seen as a potential precedent for ongoing legal challenges against President Trump's controversial $100,000 H-1B visa fee proclamation. Legal experts suggest that the EB-5 ruling indicates judicial willingness to scrutinize fee authority and procedural compliance, which are central issues in the H-1B lawsuits. The EB-5 fee hikes were deemed contrary to law, violating both statutory requirements and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Why It's Important?
The ruling against the EB-5 fee hike is significant as it may influence the outcome of lawsuits challenging President Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee. This fee has been criticized for functioning as a punitive barrier to skilled immigration, rather than a cost-based charge. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that executive actions comply with legislative intent and statutory authority. If similar scrutiny is applied to the H-1B fee, it could lead to a reversal, impacting employers, universities, and immigrant-rights groups who have opposed the fee. The outcome of these legal challenges could affect U.S. immigration policy and the ability of skilled workers to enter the country.
What's Next?
While the EB-5 ruling offers hope, legal experts caution that the H-1B fee challenge involves different legal grounds, as it stems from a presidential proclamation rather than a USCIS regulation. Courts may be more deferential to presidential authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the EB-5 decision provides a meaningful precedent, suggesting that courts are willing to examine whether the government has exceeded its statutory limits. The ongoing legal battle over the H-1B fee will continue to unfold, with stakeholders closely monitoring judicial interpretations of fee authority and compliance.
