Okay, this week was a lot… We had four developments worth discussing. Let's go through what impacts you now, what's still just a proposal, and what you can safely ignore.
DHS Wants to End "Deference" on H-1B and L-1 Extensions
I covered this in full on Wednesday, so if you read that, nothing has changed yet. There's is one new detail from this week to consider. I also posted a couple of videos about it here.
Just incase you missed it: DHS proposed removing a rule (8 CFR 214.1(c)(5)) that currently tells USCIS officers to use deference, or to defer to a beneficiary’s prior approval when reviewing an extension request. This means that if an extension is submitted for same employer, with the same role, and same facts, the officer will defer to the prior approval, barring any inconsistencies or evidence of fraud. DHS wants to get rid of this. Now, if this goes through, every form I-129 extension will get reviewed as if it were a brand-new petition every time, instead of leaning on the fact that USCIS already approved an H-1B petition for the same job, same employer, same facts. Removing this will make every H-1B more arduous for adjudicators to review, and will also increase the number of RFEs by an estimated ~6000/year.
This week, the Federal Register notice itself surfaced some of DHS's own reasoning: DHS cites internal site-visit data showing H-1B extension noncompliance or fraud at 22.39% for FY2022–2025, up from 16.77% in FY2018–2020, and a similar jump for L-1A extensions (24.46% vs. 18.37%). They say this covers roughly 208,429 of the ~688,830 extension petitions filed annually, or about 30%. That's the agency's stated justification for wanting to remove automatic deference. I'm not going to litigate whether that data tells the whole story, I just want you to know what the supposed motive is, because "why is this happening?" is usually the first question people ask.
What hasn't changed: this is still a proposed rule, not a final one. The public comment period runs 30 days from the October 14th Federal Register publication, which puts the deadline at November 13, 2026. Nothing takes effect before that, and even after comments close, DHS still has to review them and issue a final rule. You can go comment here.
This week's news also included a separate, already-final rule that makes the October 2025 change ending automatic EAD extensions for certain pending renewal applicants, permanent. That one mostly affects H-4 dependents, not H-1B holders themselves.
Multiple outlets ran headlines this week that put these together under one "H-1B" banner”. I’ll go into this more in the myth-bust section, because it's likely to cause unnecessary panic.
Still On the Horizon: DOL's PERM Modernization Rule
The Department of Labor plans to overhaul the PERM labor-certification process (the step before most employment-based green card filings), officially titled "Modernizing the Labor Market Test and Improving Protections for U.S. Workers in the PERM Immigrant Visa Program." It's been sitting at OIRA (the White House's regulatory review office) since mid-September, and typical OIRA review timelines run weeks to months. It hasn't been published yet, which means there's no actual text to react to. What we do know is that the modernization rule is structural. It would change how the PERM test works for everyone, industry-wide, once it's actually published.
This is different from the recent news regarding PERM suspension for some major tech firms, including Microsoft: The suspension is enforcement of current regulation. DOL froze new PERM filings for eight specific employers (Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Infosys, TCS, Wipro, HCL, Capgemini) while it investigates alleged fraud.
It’s also important to note that Microsoft responded to the allegations, directly addressing the “foreign indentured servants” framing that’s been circulating. Microsoft was one of the eight companies named in VP Vance’s October 8th announcement, which claimed Microsoft laid off 6,000 American workers last year while bringing in 6,300 H-1B visas and nearly 3,000 green cards.
Microsoft pushed back the same day with its own statement, and its numbers don’t quite match Vance’s. Microsoft says it filed approximately 6,000 H-1B applications last fiscal year (not 6,300), and that 80% of those were extensions or status changes for people already working there, not new hires. The new-employee filings, by Microsoft’s own count, equal only about 1% of its total U.S. workforce; the company also says the vast majority of its American employees are Americans, that it pays H-1B workers the same as anyone else doing comparable work. They stated that they look forward to providing the administration with more information.
India's Ministry of External Affairs put out a statement confirming the suspension doesn't touch the validity of H-1B visas that are already approved, it only affects new or pending PERM filings through those eight employers.
(Side note: Amazon is actually the largest U.S. employer of H-1B workers. Microsoft is fifth. Amazon wasn’t named in the suspension at all.)
Update: Duration of Status Litigation
The nationwide block on DHS's rule ending "duration of status" for F, J, and I visa holders is still fully in effect, nothing has changed. This week I was able to confirm a detail that was previously unclear: at an October 2nd status conference, the government told the judge it wants to ask the First Circuit to fast-track its appeal and pause the district court case in the meantime, while the people challenging the rule want the court to move straight to a final judgment instead. The judge told both sides to file their positions by October 9.
As of today, there are no updates beyond that.
One More Thing on the Horizon: Today's USCIS Fee Increase
This one was brand new yesterday, and it's another headline that sounds scarier than it is.
USCIS's FY2027 inflation-adjusted fee increase took effect yesterday, October 16th, for covered filings postmarked on or after today. It raises six fees, all tied to asylum, parole, or TPS filings. The biggest jump is the Form I-131 parole fee, going from $1,020 to $1,050. The others are smaller: the EAD fee for asylum applicants, parolees, and TPS holders goes from $560 to $570, the TPS fee itself goes from $510 to $520, and the annual pending-asylum fee ticks up from $102 to $105.
Standard F-1 OPT and STEM OPT filing fees are unchanged. If you're on H-1B, F-1, OPT, or STEM OPT, this fee increase doesn't touch you at all. However, even if this doesn’t impact you, it’s important to be aware because several outlets ran generic "USCIS to increase fees" headlines without specifying which fees, and that can cause a lot of "wait, is my OPT fee going up too?" panic. It isn't.
Myth-Buster: What the Internet Got Wrong This Week
A few things circulating this week deserve a direct correction, because precision matters more than panic.
"H-1B extensions are being eliminated." This is the misreading I'm seeing of the deference proposal, and it's not accurate. The proposal removes automatic deference, meaning USCIS goes back to fully re-reviewing each extension instead of leaning on its own prior approval. It does not eliminate your ability to file for an extension, and it does not create any new cap on how many times you can extend. More paperwork and scrutiny, potentially. Not the end of extensions.
"No H-1B extensions beyond 6 years." A separate claim floating around this week, and there's no such provision in this proposal at all. That number doesn't appear anywhere in the DHS notice. This looks like it's gotten mixed up with the long-standing general H-1B six-year maximum-stay rule, which already has well-established AC21 exceptions for people with a pending green card case.
Headlines blending two different rules into one. This week, the deference proposal (affecting H-1B and L-1 extension petitions) and the already-final EAD auto-extension rule (affecting mostly H-4 and L-2 dependents) were often written about together, which led people to believe that they were somehow related, or the same. Headlines bundled them under one H-1B umbrella, tying the EAD change specifically to "Indian H-1B workers' spouses,” which could easily read as "something new just happened to H-1B holders," when really it's a dependent-focused rule that is already in effect.
"The deference rule is already final." At least one widely-syndicated headline this week described the deference change as something that "finalizes" the end of deference, even though that same article's own body text confirms it's a proposal still in its 30-day comment window.
It’s important to remember that the news is no longer just news; it is entertainment. They phrase the headlines in a way that promotes fear to increase clicks, views, and revenue. Please be sure to read the actual article, and then read other sources, or come here. You can always email me directly at info@inhousecore.com if there is something you believe I should address.
One More Thing on the Horizon: ICE's "Operation Safe California"
This isn't tied to any visa category, but I know it's generating real anxiety in immigrant communities, so it's worth addressing.
Reports this week (not an official ICE confirmation) describe this general interior-enforcement surge expanding beyond its initial San Diego start; sightings across the Central Valley and Central Coast since around October 6th, more than 250 officers reportedly deployed to Southern California, and some reporting that it could move through Los Angeles County toward the Bay Area by November. ICE and DHS haven't put out an official arrest total or confirmed start date; the numbers floating around (ranging from roughly two dozen to around 60 detentions in specific counties) come from local community-response networks, not a federal source. This is civil immigration enforcement, and while the tactics deployed have been unprecedented and highly criticized, this does not mean there has been a rule change affecting work visas or student status.
TLDR
The H-1B/L-1 deference proposal is still just a proposal. Comment period runs through November 13, 2026. Nothing changes for your current extension filings before then, and probably not immediately after either.
October 16th’s USCIS fee increase does not apply to you if you're on H-1B, F-1, OPT, or STEM OPT. These increases only apply to asylum, parole, and TPS fees only. If you see a generic "USCIS fees are going up" headline today, that's what it means.
The PERM modernization rule still hasn't been published. There's nothing to react to yet. The PERM suspension affecting eight specific employers is a separate, already-in-effect story.
If you work for Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Infosys, TCS, Wipro, HCL, or Capgemini, note that Microsoft's own statement says ~80% of its affected filings were extensions, not new hires, and India's MEA has confirmed existing H-1B validity is unaffected by the PERM suspension.
Don't take Operation Safe California or any general interior-enforcement news as something that changes your visa status. It's real and it's concerning, but it's not a rule change for H-1B or F-1 holders specifically.
As always: if you are concerned about your case, talk to a licensed immigration attorney before you make any decisions.
Finally, Connect, our immigration app is finally live - more soon!
This post is for general information only and is not legal advice. For guidance on your specific situation, please consult a licensed immigration attorney or your school's DSO.
