SHRM Responds to H-1B Fee Proposal

A proposed $103,265 fee for employers seeking H-1B workers through the annual visa lottery would significantly increase the cost of accessing skilled foreign talent, adding another layer of uncertainty for organizations already navigating persistent recruiting challenges. 

The proposed fee would apply to all H-1B petitions subject to the annual 85,000-visa cap, including the 20,000 visas reserved for foreign workers with qualifying U.S. master’s degrees or higher. It would be paid in addition to existing H-1B filing fees when a petition is submitted. The next H-1B cap season begins in spring 2027. 

For employers that rely on H-1B sponsorship to fill positions, the proposal could have implications for workforce planning, recruiting budgets, and long-term talent strategies.  

In a Sept. 24 regulatory comment to the proposed rule, SHRM urged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to consider alternatives to the proposed fee while maintaining the integrity of the H-1B program. 

“SHRM believes it is critical to preserve and strengthen the integrity of the H-1B program and protections for U.S. workers, and recognizes that a well-functioning immigration system requires adequate resources,” wrote Emily M. Dickens, SHRM’s chief administrative officer. 

“At the same time, U.S. employers continue to face persistent talent and skills shortages and rely on the H-1B program as an essential component of a broader set of strategies to recruit, develop, and retain the workforce they need.” 

Specialty Credential: U.S. Employment Immigration

Employers continue to report difficulty finding workers. In 2026, SHRM research found that nearly 68% of organizations reported difficulties recruiting for full-time positions, and 53% of the HR professionals from those organizations said recruiting has become more difficult compared with one year ago. 

The challenges are especially consequential in fields including engineering, computer science and information technology, health care, finance and accounting, and education. 

SHRM’s research also illustrates why some employers turn to H-1B sponsorship. Among organizations that participate in the program, 65% cited the need for highly specialized skills or expertise, 51% cited critical skills gaps, and 49% cited a lack of qualified U.S. candidates. 

“SHRM therefore encourages DHS to consider other approaches to recover costs associated with administering the immigration system while preserving employers’ access to needed talent and strengthening U.S. competitiveness,” Dickens wrote. 

Employers are already investing in a range of strategies to build and strengthen the U.S. workforce, including upskilling and reskilling, apprenticeships and other talent pipelines, professional development, and compensation and retention initiatives.

H-1B sponsorship complements — not replaces — these investments, providing employers with an additional tool to address specialized or critical skills needs when qualified domestic talent is not available, Dickens wrote. 

The proposed fee could be particularly consequential for small and midsize businesses, which may have less capacity to absorb a six-figure additional cost for a single worker, she wrote. 

SHRM cited a government analysis estimating that the proposal would have a significant economic impact on over 11,000 small organizations, representing approximately 76% of small employers that filed cap-subject petitions in fiscal year 2025. 

The potential impact also extends beyond recruiting costs. If employers cannot economically access specialized talent in the United States, they could consider alternatives such as relocating business functions overseas, reducing future workforce investments or, in some cases, shuttering business units, Dickens wrote. 

SHRM is calling on DHS to weigh employers’ existing investments in recruiting, immigration processing, onboarding, and integration, as it considers the fee structure. 

Dickens also emphasized that “adequately resourcing the immigration system, maintaining H-1B program integrity, protecting U.S. workers, and ensuring U.S. employers can access needed talent need not be competing objectives.”