9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee for H-1B and L-1 Visas
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending the regulations concerning the 9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee for certain H-1B and L-1 Visas (9-11 Biometric Fee). The regulatory changes correct DHS's interpretation of statutory language to require that covered employers submit the 9-11 Biometric Fee for all extension of status petitions, regardless of whether the related fraud prevention and detection fee applies, which includes extension of status petitions that do not involve a change of employer. The 9-11 Biometric Fee continues to apply unchanged to petitions seeking an initial grant of status. The changes also help DHS comply with its congressional mandate to implement a biometric entry-exit system.
What this means
- This rule has been in effect since 2026-09-09. (effectiveAt)
- The document names a closed list: H-1B specialty occupation, F-1 academic student, L-1 intracompany transferee. (impact.stated (exhaustive))
- The document states a requirement for the people it covers. The exact wording is quoted above — whether it applies to any particular person depends on facts this platform does not have. (impact.actionRequired)
Derived from this event’s own recorded fields — not written by a model, and not an interpretation of anyone’s case.
Who is affected
What the document says may be required
The document states a requirement for those it covers. The exact obligation, and whether it applies to a particular person, depends on the document's own terms — the relevant passage is quoted below.
“Although not all those seeking H-1B and L-1 classification are required to obtain a visa, the headings in the statute refer to temporary fee increases for H-1B and L-1 visas, and consequently the headings in the implementing regulations refer to fees for H-1B and L-1 visas.”
The document publishes a closed list, reproduced here in full. Assembled from the source document, not from anyone's individual circumstances. Whether a change applies to a specific person depends on facts this platform does not have. This is data context, not legal advice.