The $100,000 H-1B payment remains blocked, so employers cannot treat the court action as permission to collect it.
The ruling did not decide the appeal. It also did not lift the order barring enforcement of the payment.
For sponsors and workers, the immediate question is whether a petition falls within the original payment requirement. That depended on the beneficiary’s location and the type of filing.
The denial does not lift the block on collecting the payment
The administration sought to pause proceedings while it challenged an order that granted a preliminary injunction in part.
The judge’s refusal to pause proceedings is not a decision by the Ninth Circuit, nor does it suspend the injunction. The appeal remains pending. The payment is still blocked.
The California proceeding is one part of a broader legal dispute. Its latest procedural step does not establish what the appeals court will decide, or when it will rule.
The original payment targeted new petitions for workers abroad
The original requirement covered new H-1B petitions for beneficiaries outside the United States who needed consular processing. It did not apply to every H-1B filing.
- Workers abroad: New petitions requiring consular processing fell within the original scope.
- Workers already in the United States: Petitions seeking a change of status or an extension of status were excluded from that payment requirement.
That distinction describes the original policy’s coverage. The current court order separately blocks collection, so covered employers should not assume the fee is payable now.
Separate court rulings have left the fee’s legal path unresolved
The District of Massachusetts vacated the implementing policies on June 8, 2026. The First Circuit denied the government’s request to stay a district court order blocking the H-1B measures, including the proposed $100,000 filing fee.
The latest procedural development does not settle the underlying legal questions. The appeals remain important because the orders currently prevent the government from enforcing the payment.
A separate H-1B proposal would set a different fee
The $100,000 payment and a separate proposed fee have different legal status and potential coverage.
| Measure | Amount and status | Potential coverage |
|---|---|---|
| Blocked H-1B payment | $100,000; collection is blocked by court orders | Originally covered new petitions requiring consular processing for beneficiaries outside the United States |
The $70,000 figure concerns a school fee, not a green card
The phrase “$70,000 pay-to-stay model” points to a different proposal. The figure is for a proposed school payment tied to Optional Practical Training, not a price for permanent residence.
DHS published the proposal on October 8, 2026. It would require a school to pay $70,000 for its first recommendation for an F-1 student’s OPT. Later recommendations, including STEM OPT extensions, would cost $30,000 apiece. A student receiving both pre-completion and post-completion OPT could therefore generate $100,000 in proposed school fees.
The school would pay before its designated school official could enter the recommendation in SEVIS. If the fee were unpaid, USCIS could not grant employment authorization under the proposal. Schools could pass the cost on to students or employers, but the proposed payer is the school.
The proposal would cover recommendations for pre-completion or post-completion OPT. DHS said the initial fee was “comparable to the fee for H-1B visas,” citing Proclamation 10973 and the $100,000 H-1B payment, and said it aims to stop students and employers from using OPT to avoid H-1B fees. Legal500 reports potential annual costs of up to $16.5 billion across nearly 2,500 affected institutions, and says the rule is expected to face significant legal challenges if finalized. The $70,000 charge is not a green-card fee, and it does not establish a general shift from a degree-linked green-card policy to a new payment route.
The comment period closed November 9, 2026. Under the proposal, a final rule would take effect 60 days after publication, and fees would apply only to recommendations dated after that date. No final rule had been issued, so the proposed charge has no effective date yet.
The Trump Gold Card is a separate program. Executive Order 14351, signed September 19, 2025, allows an individual’s $1 million gift to the Treasury, or a company’s $2 million gift per employee, to serve as evidence in an EB-1 or EB-2 green-card application. It does not create a new visa category or remove statutory visa limits. Those terms do not substantiate a $70,000 green-card price.
Check the petition’s status before making a payment decision
Immigration attorneys described processing delays and some resumed adjudications, but those observations are not a USCIS guarantee for an individual case.
- Check the petition’s status and case-specific timing through the USCIS processing-times page.
- Confirm the applicable filing charge with the USCIS fee calculator; do not treat the blocked payment or the separate proposal as an amount currently due.
- Ask counsel how the injunction and pending appeal apply to a specific petition.
USCIS processing times and fees can vary by petition type. The court proceedings do not guarantee when any individual case will be decided.
