H-1B Filing Fees and Key Information for 2025 – 2026

/in , , /by

H-1B Visa 2025: Higher Fees, New Rules, and What Employers & Workers Need to Know

The H-1B visa program is changing in 2025, and employers, HR teams, and foreign workers need to be prepared. This year’s lottery comes with increased fees, new employer obligations, and policy shifts that could impact your chances of securing a visa.

If your company is planning to sponsor an H-1B employee—or if you’re a foreign worker hoping to apply—here’s what you need to know before the registration period opens on March 7, 2025.

1. Higher Registration Fee: From $10 to $215

In past years, the H-1B lottery registration fee was a low $10 per applicant—a cost so minimal that many employers applied for large pools of candidates.

This year, the fee has increased to $215 per registration, marking a 2,050% increase. The goal? To discourage frivolous applications and reduce the overwhelming number of duplicate entries in the lottery.

🚨 Takeaway for Employers & Applicants:

  • Companies must budget for higher registration costs.
  • Applicants should coordinate closely with employers to ensure registration is handled correctly.

2. New $600 Asylum Program Fee for H-1B Employers

A new $600 “Asylum Program Fee” has been added for H-1B petitioning employers. This fee will fund asylum processing costs, shifting some of the financial burden from government budgets to companies hiring foreign workers.

📌 Who Pays This Fee?

  • $600 → Large companies (25+ employees)
  • $300 → Small businesses (25 or fewer employees)
  • Exempt → Nonprofits & educational institutions

🚨 Key Takeaways for Employers:

  • If you’re sponsoring an H-1B worker, factor this additional cost into your budget.
  • This fee applies when filing Form I-129, after the applicant is selected in the lottery.

3. Extended “Cap-Gap” Work Authorization for F-1 Students

For international students on F-1 visas, USCIS has extended the Cap-Gap work authorization period.

Previously:

  • F-1 students with pending H-1B petitions had work authorization until October 1.

Now:

  • Work authorization extends until April 1 of the following year, giving students six additional months of uninterrupted employment while waiting for their H-1B approval.

🚨 What This Means:

  • Employers can avoid employment gaps when hiring F-1 students transitioning to H-1B status.
  • Students can continue working legally longer while awaiting their visa decision.

What This Means for Employers & Applicants

These changes make it more expensive and complex to apply for an H-1B visa. Whether you’re an employer navigating the process or a worker seeking sponsorship, expert guidance can make all the difference.

How Our Firm Can Help:
✅ Register your H-1B lottery application correctly to avoid errors
✅ Ensure compliance with new fees & employer obligations
✅ Maximize your chances of success by preparing a strong petition

Don’t risk costly mistakes—let our team guide you.

📞 Schedule a consultation today!

🔗 Click Here to Get Started

Virginia Hospital Indicted Over Unnecessary Surgeries: A Wake-Up Call for Patient Vigilance

/in /by

January 14, 2024

By Julie Oliver-Zhang, Esq.

Virginia Hospital Indicted Over Unnecessary Surgeries: A Wake-Up Call for Patient Vigilance

In a significant legal development, Chesapeake Regional Medical Center in Virginia has been indicted on federal charges of healthcare fraud and conspiracy. The indictment alleges that the hospital facilitated unnecessary surgeries performed by Dr. Javaid Perwaiz, an obstetrician-gynecologist who conducted irreversible hysterectomies and improper sterilizations on numerous women without medical necessity. These procedures, driven by a profit motive, left many patients sterile and were reimbursed by programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Despite being aware of Dr. Perwaiz’s prior misconduct, including a history of performing unnecessary surgeries and a guilty plea to federal tax fraud charges in 1996, the hospital granted him privileges from 1984 until his arrest in 2019. During this period, the hospital received $18.5 million in reimbursements for procedures he performed. Dr. Perwaiz was sentenced to 59 years in prison in 2021. The hospital is scheduled for arraignment on January 22, 2025, and has stated its intention to contest the charges. 

Reuters

Implications for Patients

This case underscores the critical importance of patient vigilance in healthcare settings. To safeguard against unnecessary or harmful medical procedures, patients should consider the following steps:

  • Seek Second Opinions: Before undergoing significant surgical procedures, especially those that are irreversible, obtaining a second opinion can provide confirmation of the necessity and appropriateness of the recommended treatment.
  • Research Healthcare Providers: Investigate the background and reputation of healthcare providers and institutions. Resources such as state medical boards and online reviews can offer valuable insights into a provider’s history and patient satisfaction.
  • Ask Questions: Engage in open communication with your healthcare provider. Understand the reasons behind recommended procedures, potential risks, and alternative treatment options.
  • Be Aware of Red Flags: Be cautious if a provider recommends immediate surgery without exploring less invasive options, or if they dismiss your concerns about the necessity of a procedure.

Legal Recourse

Victims of unnecessary medical procedures have the right to seek legal recourse. Medical malpractice laws are designed to protect patients from negligent or unethical practices by healthcare providers. If you believe you have been subjected to unnecessary medical treatment, consulting with a qualified medical malpractice attorney can help you understand your rights and options.

Conclusion

The indictment of Chesapeake Regional Medical Center serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences when healthcare providers prioritize profit over patient care. Patients must remain vigilant, informed, and proactive in their healthcare decisions to protect themselves from unnecessary and potentially harmful medical interventions.

Understaffing at Kaiser Permanente: A Pitfall for Medical Malpractice?

/in /by

By Julie Oliver-Zhang, Esq.

January 10, 2025

Understaffing at Kaiser Permanente: A Pitfall for Medical Malpractice?

In October 2023, over 75,000 Kaiser Permanente healthcare workers initiated a three-day strike across multiple states, including the District of Columbia, to protest chronic understaffing and its detrimental impact on patient care.

AP News

The Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions emphasized that persistent staffing shortages have led to increased workloads, employee burnout, and compromised patient safety. A survey conducted by the Alliance of Health Care Unions revealed that 95% of Kaiser Permanente workers believe understaffing negatively affects patient care and access.

UFCW Local 400

Understaffing in healthcare settings can lead to:

  • Delayed Treatments: Patients may experience longer wait times, resulting in the progression of medical conditions.
  • Medication Errors: Overworked staff are more prone to mistakes in medication administration.
  • Inadequate Monitoring: Critical changes in patient conditions may go unnoticed without sufficient staffing.

These issues can increase the risk of medical malpractice, as healthcare providers may fail to meet the standard of care required for patient safety.

In response to the strike, Kaiser Permanente reached a tentative agreement with the unions, promising to address staffing concerns and improve working conditions.

The Hill

Patients receiving care during periods of understaffing should:

  • Stay Informed: Be aware of ongoing labor disputes that may affect healthcare services.
  • Advocate for Themselves: Communicate concerns to healthcare providers and seek second opinions if necessary.
  • Seek Legal Counsel: If substandard care is suspected, consult with a medical malpractice attorney to explore legal options.

The recent labor disputes at Kaiser Permanente highlight the critical need for adequate staffing in healthcare facilities to ensure patient safety and prevent potential medical malpractice.

Sources:

Kaiser Permanente Workers Strike Over Staffing Concerns

No H-1B Visa Lottery Necessary for Institutes of Higher Education, Affiliated Non-Profits, and Government Agencies for Research

/in /by

By Jessabelle M. Koppelman, Esq. and Julie Oliver-Zhang, Esq.

If you have the right employer sponsor, you can apply for an H1b visa anytime of the year and have no need to win a spot in the H-1B lottery. Every year, USCIS sets aside 85,000 H-1B visas that are subject to the lottery process. But did you know that some organizations are exempt from the cap? Qualifying organizations do not need to undergo random selection to compete for limited H1b visas. Indeed, federal law allows certain organizations to forego the lottery process, specifically:

  1. Institutions of higher education;
  2. Non-profit organizations related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education;
  3. Non-profit research organizations; and
  4. Government research organizations.

See INA § 214(g)(5)(A)-(B).

Determining if your organization is exempt from the H-1B visa cap can be tricky. Let’s take a look at some of the fundamental characteristics of institutions of higher education and related or affiliated non-profits.

Institution of Higher Education

USCIS relies on the Higher Education Act of 1965’s definition of “institution of higher education.” Under the Act, key characteristics of a college university are:

  • Admits students with a certificate of graduation from a school that provides secondary education, or the equivalent;
  • Authorized in the State to provide an educational program beyond secondary education;
  • Provides an educational program that awards a bachelor’s degree or provides at least a two (2) year program that is acceptable towards a bachelor’s degree;
  • Is a public or other non-profit institution; and
  • Is accredited or pre-accredited.

Related to or Affiliated

The definition of an institute of higher education is clearly outlined, but how USCIS determines that a non-profit is “related to or affiliated” with such institutes is not as clear. To qualify for an H1b visa cap exemption, a non-profit petitioner can demonstrate that they are affiliated or related to an institution of higher education if they can prove at least one of the below prerequisites. Generally, that the non-profit is:

  • Associated through mutual ownership or control by the same board or federation;
  • Is operated by an institution of higher education; or
  • Is attached to an institution of higher education as a member, branch, cooperative, or subsidiary.

Non-profits need to provide proof that they qualify for this exemption. Some evidence that USCIS may consider includes but is not limited to, By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation, IRS 501(c)(3) Designation Letter, documentation listing the mutual Board of Directors members, and agreements between the non-profit and institute.

Oliver-Zhang Law’s immigration attorneys recognize that the H-1B visa process can be confusing. That’s why our professionals are committed to guiding you every step of the way. We even provide free immigration consultations for individuals and companies that want to learn more about H-1B visas.

Contact us today to inquire about our immigration services. Call our experienced H1B attorneys ready to provide you with the best services at (202) 643-1110 or email us at [email protected]. We look forward to working with you.

Meiwah Reopening- Coronavirus and the Immigrant Population

/in /by

Dear Friends,
Great news, Meiwah is reopening today!  Like so many local businesses that have been impacted by Covid-19, particularly Asian restaurants, Meiwah Restaurant in Chevy Chase had stopped operating in April.  Larry La, the owner of the restaurant, is a Vietnamese-Chinese refugee who arrived in the US decades ago.  For nearly 20 years, the restaurant has stood as a symbol of hard-won American dream in our community.  For us immigration lawyers, it is a source of pride, inspiration, and affirmation that those whom we help can go on to make such important and wonderful contributions to America.  Here are two articles about Meiwah and the devastating domino effect coronavirus has had on a chain of businesses:   
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-04-18/one-restaurant-s-story-shows-how-recession-spreads?utm_source=url_link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2019/05/23/larry-la-fled-vietnam-and-thrived-in-restaurants-but-he-could-not-save-his-flagship-meiwah/

Meiwah is reopening today for pick-up orders at 301-652-9882, and delivering via Doordash.com and Ubereats.com.  

Asian restaurants are commonly employers for a struggling immigrant population. They have also been the undeserved targets for discrimination during this crisis.  I hope that everyone will help spread the word and try to order food and support these local businesses in our communities as much as we can.  They truly need our help!  

Thank you all!  And please stay well. 

~ Julie Oliver-Zhang, Managing Partner of Oliver-Zhang Law

Zantac Recall Cancer Lawsuit Update

/in /by

Zantac Recall Cancer Lawsuit Update, April 3, 2020:

By Julie Oliver-Zhang, Esq. and Rachel Wei, Esq.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on April 1, 2020 that it is requesting manufacturers to immediately withdraw all prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) ranitidine drugs, commonly known as Zantac, from the market. A contaminant known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in ranitidine medications is a probable human carcinogen. The FDA found that NDMA in some ranitidine products increases over time and when stored at higher than room temperatures. This results in consumer exposure to unacceptable levels of this carcinogenic impurity. Disturbingly, new FDA testing confirmed that the carcinogenic NDMA levels increase in ranitidine even under normal storage conditions

On February 10, 2020, 15 Zantac lawsuit plaintiffs have been transferred to South District of Florida court, where a multidistrict litigation (MDL) has been filed on behalf of individuals who have been diagnosed with cancer subsequent to taking Zantac and similar ranitidine products. According to the transfer order, which was approved by federal judges, there are currently 126 cases pending in 21 districts nationwide. The Zantac lawsuit MDL currently consists both of individual plaintiffs alleging personal injury and punitive damage class action lawsuits.

Oliver-Zhang Law is representing clients nationwide who were diagnosed with cancer after exposure to Zantac. Please contact our Zantac attorneys at [email protected], or 202-643-1110 to see if you are eligible to claim compensation for your cancer injuries in the ongoing Zantac cancer litigation.

Knocking Down the Barricades of Discrimination: Same-Sex Marriage Equality Upheld in Oklahoma

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Visa

June 15, 3014

By Julie Oliver-Zhang, Esq.

Victory was celebrated this Tuesday by gay rights supporters as Oklahoma joined one of two other federal courts, Utah and California, which have struck down a ban against same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.  In the decision, Judge Terence C. Kern of United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, using a rational basis review, held that:

“Part A intentionally discriminates against same-sex couples desiring an Oklahoma marriage license without a legally sufficient justification. First, Part A’s disparate impact upon same-sex couples desiring to marry is stark.  Its effect is to prevent every same-sex couple in Oklahoma from receiving a marriage license, and no other couple. This is not a case where the law has a small or incidental effect on the defined class; it is a total exclusion of only one group . . . .  moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is not a permissible justification for a law.”

One of the two plaintiff lesbian couples, Susan Barton and Gay Phillips, own a company that provides vocational training to homeless teens.  Barton is an adjunct professor at Tulsa Community College and Phillips has a doctorate in sociology.  They have been in a committed, loving same-sex relationship for thirty years.  In order to legitimize their relationship, they had joined hands in matrimony three times.  The first was in a civil union in Vermont in 2001, then in Canada in 2005.  They again received a marriage license in California in 2008.  Like the Barton couple, many other same-sex couples have to marry outside of the state where they reside in order to qualify for federal benefits, such as the right to immigrate and receive green cards that was made available by Windsor in 2013.

On the heels of the Utah same-sex marriage freeze, Judge Kern had stayed his decision also pending appeal, although Attorney General Holder has affirmed in his recent video statement that all those LGBT couples who did manage to get married in Utah before the freeze are absolutely eligible for federal benefits.  This means that until the appeal is resolved, same-sex couples cannot legally get married and receive marriage licenses in Oklahoma.

Thus, the practical implication of the decision for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples who are in need of immediate immigration benefits is that they still must get married in another state or country that had legalized same-sex marriage.  USCIS has announced that it is the law of where the marriage was conducted, and not where the gay couple resides, that matters when it comes to the issuance of immigration benefits.  With foreign fiancée or spouses who have lived together and perhaps unlawfully present in the United States for decades because they are unable to receive legal status prior to Windsor, they can now contact an experienced LGBT immigration attorney to discuss their green card and inadmissibility waiver options.  Often, cases involving illegal aliens in same-sex marriages require professional assistance because the penalty can be deportation and permanent bar from re-entering the United States.

Yet, the tidal wave of equality for same-sex marriage is undeniable.  As Judge Kern eloquently concluded in his order:

“Supreme Court law now prohibits states from passing laws that are born of animosity against homosexuals, extends constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals, and prohibits the federal government from treating opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently. There is no precise legal label for what has occurred in Supreme Court jurisprudence beginning with Romer in 1996 and culminating in Windsor in 2013, but this Court knows a rhetorical shift when it sees one. . . .  Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed.”