Federal judge strikes down USCIS EB-5 fee hike, fueling H-1B lawsuits

A federal judge in Colorado has struck down a major USCIS EB-5 fee hike, undoing steep increases that had applied to immigrant investors since April 2024 and raising fresh questions about other immigration fee changes, including those for H-1B workers. The ruling, issued on November 12, 2025, in Moody et al. v. Mayorkas et al., held that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services unlawfully raised EB-5 filing fees without first completing a fee study required by Congress under the Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA).

The central legal question and the court’s finding

At the center of the case was a simple question with wide impact: could USCIS sharply increase fees for the EB-5 immigrant investor program before it finished and published a detailed cost study ordered by the RIA? U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney concluded it could not.

She found the agency violated both the statute and the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing the changes and only completing the study in February 2025, almost a year after the higher fees took effect.

The decision emphasizes that statutory procedures — here, a congressionally required fee study — must be completed before agencies impose major fee changes.

Immediate fee reversals — what changed

The decision immediately reset several core EB-5 charges to their pre-April 2024 levels. The most notable reversals:

• These forms are central to the EB-5 process:
  • Form I-526 / I-526E — filed by investors to start the path to permanent residence via investment and job creation.
  • Form I-829 — filed later to remove conditions on the green card.
  • Forms I-956 / I-956F — used by regional centers that pool investor funds for projects.

Official details on EB-5 program filing are available on the USCIS EB-5 page at USCIS EB-5 page.

USCIS must now accept filings at the restored, lower fee amounts.

Market and practitioner reaction

The ruling has already affected behavior in the EB-5 market:

• Regional centers that had slowed or paused new investor subscriptions due to cost concerns have begun reopening offerings at the restored rates.
• Immigration lawyers report investors who delayed filings during the fee hike are now moving forward, seeing:
  • Financial relief from lower fees, and
  • Judicial enforcement of the RIA’s protections.

Attorneys advise affected investors to keep careful records of any payments and to consult counsel about how to request refunds once official guidance is available.

Broader implications for other fee hikes (H-1B, L-1, etc.)

The judgment has created ripples across the broader employment-based immigration community. USCIS’s 2025 fee rule did not only affect investors; it also raised fees for high-demand categories such as H-1B specialty occupation workers and L-1 intracompany transferees.

• By finding procedural and statutory defects in the EB-5 fee increase, the court highlighted legal weak points that could support new lawsuits against other fee hikes.
• Legal and industry observers note that if the same cost-justification or procedural gaps appear in the H-1B or other fee contexts, plaintiffs may point to Moody et al. v. Mayorkas et al. as persuasive precedent.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, interest in potential H-1B fee challenges surged soon after news of the ruling, with companies and trade groups studying whether similar arguments could apply to the 2025 H-1B fee schedule.

Timing, rulemaking, and the transition period

A key timeline element is the fee study USCIS completed in February 2025. DHS has since released a proposed fee adjustment based on that study and opened it for public comment through December 22, 2025. A final rule is expected in early 2026.

• Until a new final rule is issued and takes effect, the lower, pre-2024 EB-5 fees remain in place by court order.
• This creates an unusual transition period where one fee rule has been struck down while another proposed rule is still being debated.

Refunds and recovery of overpaid amounts

The question of refunds is emerging as a major practical concern.

• Investors who paid the higher EB-5 fees between April 2024 and the November 12, 2025 ruling may be able to seek refunds or other recovery of overpaid amounts.
• The details likely will depend on:
  • Further USCIS guidance, and
  • Potential additional litigation.

For now, lawyers recommend that affected investors:
– Keep meticulous records of all payments, and
– Consult counsel about the best process to request repayment once USCIS announces procedures.

USCIS guidance and where to look for forms

USCIS has not yet published detailed public guidance on the implementation of the ruling beyond accepting EB-5 filings at the restored levels. The agency’s standard EB-5 forms remain posted on its website, including:

• Form I-526 / I-526E — Form I-526 / I-526E
• Form I-829 — Form I-829
• Form I-956 / I-956F — Form I-956 / I-956F

Attorneys advise investors to rely on the current fee amounts listed there, cross-checked with the court’s order and any subsequent DHS announcements.

Policy and practical takeaways

• Congress inserted fee study requirements into the EB-5 section of the RIA to tie future fee levels to documented program costs.
• The judge’s decision illustrates that those safeguards have practical force — agencies must follow statutory steps before imposing major fee changes.
• The reversal demonstrates how technical legal requirements can produce immediate, substantial financial effects:
  • For individual families, the difference across multiple EB-5 filings can reach tens of thousands of dollars.
  • For regional centers managing hundreds of investors, the ruling may determine whether projects proceed or stall.
  • For H-1B employers, the case is a reminder that litigation — not just rulemaking — can determine the cost of hiring foreign talent.

Key takeaway: Courts can, and will, scrutinize whether agencies complied with statutory fee-study requirements before raising fees — a ruling with consequences beyond EB-5 to the entire immigration fee structure.