OPT fee proposal: costs, timing, and hiring decisions

The proposal has not changed today's OPT fees

The October 8 Federal Register notice is a proposed rule. DHS must complete rulemaking before imposing the new charges, and its proposed implementation date is 60 days after publication of a future final rule. November 9 is a comment deadline, not a payment deadline or an effective date. The eventual text, timing, and implementation instructions could differ.

DHS describes the fees as a way to discourage fraud, increase school oversight, protect U.S. workers, and deter perceived circumvention of H-1B caps and fees. Those are the agency's stated policy reasons, not findings that every OPT participant or employer is misusing the program. DHS also says the receipts would go to the U.S. Treasury; ICE lacks authority to retain these proposed fees for its own enforcement budget. The notice discusses possible termination of OPT without the fees, but does not itself terminate OPT.

Separate the proposed school charge from USCIS filing costs

The proposed fees attach to an SEVP-certified school's OPT recommendation, not to an employer petition. The school would have to pay before its designated school official, or DSO, enters the recommendation in SEVIS. The student would then receive an updated Form I-20 and separately apply to USCIS for employment authorization. The proposal would cover students admitted in F-1 status and those who changed to F-1 status inside the United States.

Which date would determine the new charge?

The transition language in proposed 8 CFR 214.13(i)(3) uses the date of the DSO recommendation. Graduation, the job-offer date, and the requested employment start date are not its stated triggers. A student who used OPT before implementation would not necessarily qualify for the lower charge: the first covered recommendation would require $70,000 even if that recommendation is for a STEM extension.

Pre-completion OPT can change the total cost

The proposal covers pre-completion OPT, post-completion OPT, and the 24-month STEM OPT extension. Standard OPT generally provides up to 12 months, with pre-completion use reducing the time available afterward. Eligible STEM graduates can apply for a further 24 months; that extension is neither automatic nor available for every degree or job.

If every recommendation fell within the proposed fee system, post-completion OPT followed by STEM OPT would generate $100,000 in new school fees: $70,000 plus $30,000. Pre-completion OPT followed by post-completion OPT and then STEM OPT would generate $130,000. These examples exclude USCIS application fees and do not create additional training time. Students should assess whether a pre-completion opportunity justifies a separate recommendation, without treating CPT as an interchangeable substitute.

Who would fund the payment, and when could it be refunded?

The government's proposed payment obligation belongs to the school. DHS nevertheless acknowledges that schools could pass costs to the individual F-1 student, employers, or the wider student population, subject to other applicable laws. The notice does not promise a school subsidy or require an employer to finance OPT. A school policy, employer reimbursement agreement, and federal fee obligation are three different things.

The refund provision is limited and discretionary. The school could request a refund if the student has not been issued the associated OPT EAD or been granted the OPT extension. The DSO would first have to remove the OPT recommendation from SEVIS. SEVP would decide each request individually, and its determination would not have an administrative appeal. Once the EAD is issued or the extension granted, the proposed fee would not be refundable—even if a job later disappears. A denial would therefore permit a request, not guarantee repayment. Any return of money collected from a student or employer should be addressed separately in the school's written agreement.

Keep the actual work-authorization process on track

A proposal does not suspend current eligibility requirements or replace current filing fees. Students should continue to coordinate the DSO recommendation, signed I-20, correct I-765 category, supporting documents, and applicable USCIS filing window. Verify the live fee schedule before submitting; the amounts above distinguish today's application costs from hypothetical future school charges.

For an initial OPT start, a DSO recommendation, fee payment, or accepted offer does not authorize employment. USCIS authorization and the approved EAD dates control. Separate continuation rules can apply to qualifying, timely filed STEM extensions; employers should verify the student's actual documents rather than assume every pending application permits work. The training must relate directly to the student's major. Post-completion OPT generally permits no more than 90 aggregate unemployment days; an approved 24-month STEM extension raises the combined limit to 150, including days already used.

STEM employers still have substantive training duties

A large proposed payment would not purchase an exemption from STEM compliance. Before promising a STEM placement, an employer should confirm that it can satisfy the existing requirements in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C). These responsibilities extend beyond supplying an E-Verify number.

• Remain enrolled and in good standing in E-Verify, and complete an individualized Form I-983 with the student before the DSO recommendation.
• Provide the personnel, supervision, and resources described in the training plan, with duties, hours, and compensation commensurate with similarly situated U.S. workers; attest that the student will not replace a U.S. worker.
• Support required evaluations and report material training-plan changes; report an early termination or departure to the DSO within five business days.
• Maintain accurate employment records and prepare for possible DHS site visits. Paying a fee would not replace these obligations.

A practical budget and scheduling checklist

Planning can proceed without treating the proposal as settled. Build a current-law plan and a separate contingency that identifies the funding decision needed before a future recommendation.

• Schools: inventory anticipated recommendations by type and date; identify payment approvers, funding sources, proof-of-payment records, and a process for refund requests.
• Students: retain prior I-20s and EADs, map remaining OPT time, and request written answers about who would fund a covered recommendation and who bears a lost payment.
• Employers: distinguish employees already authorized from candidates needing future OPT or STEM recommendations; document any funding commitment and a realistic start-date contingency.
• Everyone: track the final rule and implementation guidance. Do not assume a small-school exemption, hardship waiver, automatic refund, or guaranteed school sponsorship.

How to comment, and what to monitor next

Substantive comments are due November 9, 2026, through Regulations.gov under docket ICEB-2026-0100. The separate December 7 deadline concerns the information collection under OMB Control Number 1653-0038; it does not extend the rule's general comment period.

Useful submissions can quantify effects on training access, recruiting, school budgets, payment administration, and refunds rather than merely endorse or oppose the proposal. DHS also requests input on an alternative that would impose another $70,000 initial fee after a student moves to a higher educational level. After commenting, monitor the docket for a final rule, its transition text, and operational instructions. No calendar date for a new payment should be assumed before those steps occur.

Common questions

Does the proposed fee apply to CPT? The proposed charge is for OPT under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)(ii), not curricular practical training. CPT has separate curriculum and authorization requirements; it is not a general workaround for an OPT cost.

Does every employer change cost another $30,000? No. DHS expressly says the fee is not tied to a particular employer or triggered merely by changing employers. Students must still meet reporting and, where applicable, training-plan requirements.

Would an employer have to pay? The school would owe the government payment. Whether an employer funds it would depend on the school's policy, applicable law, and any agreement; the proposal does not itself make it an employer filing fee.

Would paying guarantee approval or a refund? Neither. Existing eligibility and USCIS adjudication would continue. Refunds would require a school request and removal of the recommendation, would depend on SEVP's discretion, and would be unavailable once the EAD is issued or extension granted.