This resolves true if a fee largely in line with this report goes into effect. I'm sure there will be grey area here, so I won't participate.
If there are exceptions that are rare, but >=75% of H1Bs are impacted, I'll resolve yes. I'd trust a combination of official estimates and mainstream reports to decide if 75% is met. I'd define this based on 75% of the H1B load prior to the rule not after, but if only post rule data is available I'll trust that. This means if, for example, all SWEs suddenly get fees and their use drops to 0, I'd count the fraction from before the rule.
Some calculation adding up the total cost of the application doesn't count. There has to be an explicit 100k fee, not something like "50k fee + lawyer costs usually adds up to 100k".
Somewhat arbitrarily I'd like the policy to be in effect for at least a month. If a court intervenes in less than a month, I'll wait until it actually goes into effect.
If a new visa is created with this fee AND H1B is limited by more than 75% I'll resolve yes.
Update 2025-09-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - The 75% impact threshold will be evaluated based on new H-1Bs, not existing H-1B holders already in the U.S.
Update 2026-06-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The denominator for the 75% threshold includes everyone who did not already have an H-1B, including people on other visas inside the U.S. (e.g., F-1/OPT to H-1B change-of-status cases). These are counted as part of the total, not excluded.
1,000People are also trading
I guess people have discussed this already but I don’t feel like I have a clear ruling from you. Do students who are here on an F1 visa who apply for an H1B visa count as “new” for calculating the 75%?
The fee applies mainly to new H-1B beneficiaries outside the U.S. who do not already have a valid H-1B visa, and to petitions requesting consular notification / port-of-entry / pre-flight inspection. It generally does not apply to amendments, extensions, or change-of-status cases inside the U.S.
So do the change of status cases count towards the overall total or not?
EDIT: can't delete comment, realized I'm way out of the loop
@JimAusman here's what I wrote 8 months ago:
> @JeremiahKellick so my goal for this market is to try to sus out the publicity "we're changing h1bs!" from the substance "american business runs on immigrants". I think transfers from other visas like OPT to H1B being excluded would work out like the special exceptions. If they exclude a bunch of industries and a bunch of different transfer types and only end up impacting a small fraction of H1Bs, then this will resolve no.
Apologies for not making that clear in that comment, but I intended "exceptions" to the policy to cover the scenario where this is a splashy headline, but in reality it doesn't impact many. I think this is in line with the spirit of the market: trump wants the headlines but isn't actually willing to kill the golden goose.
So my formula for fraction would include everyone who did not already have an H1b in the denominator including people on other visas inside the US.
@JimAusman https://kodemlaw.com/non-immigration/h1b-lottery-results-2026/
this is far from an authoritative source, but if the numbers are anywhere in this ballpark i will not be resolving yes this year:
> The $100K fee does not apply to petitions where the beneficiary is already in the United States in lawful status and is requesting a change of status (rather than consular processing). This means most F-1 students graduating from U.S. universities and filing for H-1B status — the single largest group of H-1B applicants — are entirely exempt from the fee. This exemption covers roughly 54% of all H-1B cap petitions historically.
@JimAusman I haven't been following. I can look into it later, but do you have a citation of this happening?
@BenM "We had 286,000 applicants a year to date for the H-1B visas. Out of those, over 200,000 of them paid the $100,000 to be able to come in [...] roughly 80,000 look for a different path forward"
210/286 is 73% so v close to the threshold! But the bigger question is about the difference between the legal implementation (only for candidates resident outside the US) vs the chaotic initial messaging from the administration (apparently Lutnick mistakenly referred to an annual fee leading to the "per year" wording in the Reuters report). So I'd personally say:
"$100k fee imposed on H-1B visas": yes
"exceptions rare": no, no fee if already in US, also many "national interest" exceptions
"largely in line with [the Reuters] report": no, report is based on incorrect White House announcements (or walked-back policy if you want to see it that way). "per year" is not "largely in line" with "on initial application" in my eyes.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/senator-collins-urges-sec-mullin-to-consider-h-1b-and-h2-b-visas-exceptions
I somehow found this market next to https://manifold.markets/Robincvgr/the-game-awards-2025-prop-bets-add? Mystery, but here is a contradiction in the rules.
@BenM , 100k is not a fee. But a voluntary DONATION
Will for the purpose of resolution mandatory donations be equal to fee?
ALERT: On Sept. 19, 2025, the President issued a Proclamation, Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, an important initial step to reform the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program. Under the Proclamation, new H-1B petitions filed at or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 21, 2025 must be accompanied by an additional $100,000 payment as a condition of eligibility. Additional information is available in the "Presidential Proclamation on Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers" section below.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-specialty-occupations
this is a fee
Okay, I think I have a reasonable estimate of what percent of new H-1B’s are transferring from some other kind of US visa, versus what percent are from folks outside the US who weren’t previously on any kind of US visa.
My understanding is that if someone outside the US is approved for an H-1B, they still must go through a process called “consular processing” to enter the US.
15% of approved H-1B petitions request consular processing
Ctrl-F “USCIS data show about 15% of the approved”
34% of approved H-1B petitions are for initial employment (new H-1Bs)
Source: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/FY2019_H1B_Report.pdf
Ctrl-F “About one third (34%)”. Also see the second footnote on that page, which reinforces my belief that “initial employment” is synonymous with what we’ve been calling “new H-1Bs”
Okay, we know the 15% who request consular processing are outside the US, so they were not working in the US. Then their petitions must be for initial employment. So the 15% of petitions from folks who request consular processing is a subset of the 34% of petitions that are for initial employment. Therefore, 0.15/0.34 ≈ 0.44 = 44% of new H-1Bs are from folks outside the US.
That won’t be enough to fulfill the 75% criteria. So if the new fee only applies to folks outside the US, I believe this will resolve no. I don’t think there’s an authoritative source that clearly states whether or not transfers from some different US visa to an H-1B will be affected, but in my opinion there are significant signs that this will only apply to people outside the US.
edit: Of course, this is for a different year, and it's not even clear to me that the two percentages were derived from data covering the same year. Not saying this should be the final say on this percentage. It's just a useful estimate for knowing how to bet.
@JeremiahKellick true 100k donation for speed up the processing is for applicants outside of USA only.
Consulate.
If you apply for work Visa from inside USA, no 100k requirements
It's looking like transfers from different visas are not going to be impacted
https://www.reddit.com/r/h1b/s/B1XiAgX6uo
It's probably best to exclude transfers from this market, and I say that as a No holder. If you only consider newcomers who weren't previously holding any US visa, then the market effectively becomes "Will they do what they are currently saying they'll do, or will it back walked back/struck down?" which is the most interesting question for the market to evaluate, imo.
If you continue to evaluate it as new H-1B's (as opposed to new visas in general), then you'd have to figure out what percent of H-1Bs issued are transfers from some other kind of US visa, and I don't think those numbers are available.
@JeremiahKellick so my goal for this market is to try to sus out the publicity "we're changing h1bs!" from the substance "american business runs on immigrants". I think transfers from other visas like OPT to H1B being excluded would work out like the special exceptions. If they exclude a bunch of industries and a bunch of different transfer types and only end up impacting a small fraction of H1Bs, then this will resolve no.
(as an aside, I don't think that reddit post is authoritative as I am involved in hiring and haven't heard anything confident about OPT transfers yet from our immigration lawyers. Sounds like something a recruiter would claim to get someone to sign an offer)
@BenM Of course it's not authoritative, but I'd say there's a good chance things will play out that way. And if they do, this market will be unresolvable.
I can sympathize with the desire to not resolve yes if they do a half-assed implementation with widespread exceptions, but since you won't get the information you need to evaluate that, you won't actually resolve it that way. I think you'll have to fudge the criteria sooner or later, and I say better to try to stabilize the criteria early.
But it's your market, so this will be my last comment on the issue. Just my 2 cents
@JeremiahKellick I don't think this makes the market unresolvable. If transfers from other visas don't incur a fee, then it will just be more likely to resolve false.
@KJW_01294 This can only resolve "YES" early. I didn't expect the EO to come out so fast since I made this market based on the reuters article. So if it doesn't really get rolling til 2026 that's fine too.
As someone who works in immigration, this is a massive sh*show. Rules like this normally go through a bureaucratic process that takes months. None of the middle management people who actually implement immigration policy were informed of this at all. As I write this, there are definitely people called in over the weekend trying to formulate some kind of response or clarification. Whoever wrote this "proclamation" is clearly unfamiliar with immigration law. Also, what legal effect does a proclamation have, as opposed to an executive order? I seriously doubt this will be successfully implemented in the next few months.
Some important clarifications were put out
https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1969476188008575149
The Proclamation only applies to future applicants in the February lottery who are currently outside the U.S.
So if they back down from this/it gets struck down in court before February, no one will have been impacted. If it goes through, the fact that it seems to only apply to applicants outside the U.S. could make it difficult to resolve with the 75% criteria.
@JeremiahKellick Bit confused. Why wouldn't most applicants be from people outside the U.S.? Or on any given year are the majority of applicants just re-applicants or something of people who are already residing in the U.S.?
@JeremiahKellick if existing H1B holders can’t visit their family for a week and reenter the US, this should resolve YES IMO.
The EO is clear that CBP is directed to deny entry to H1B holders if they can’t prove their employer paid the fee. This applies at point of entry, not when it’s issued, which is contrary to the WH’s (unofficial) communication.
@KJW_01294 If that happens, I agree this should resolve yes. They fucked up communicating this beyond belief, giving many contradictory statements. But I'm predicting the clarification tweet I linked will more accurately reflect how they actually execute on this than a literal reading of the EO.
@No_uh The market creator said the 75% criteria is based on new H1B's only, so renewals won't be relevant to this market. An example of a new H1B going to someone already in the US is a person transferring from a student visa to an H1B. I have no idea if that would represent close to 25% of H1B's in a typical year. It's just something that might need to be taken into account, unless @BenM wants to update the language to exclude folks transferring from a different type of visa.
@JeremiahKellick thanks for your response! yeah, you're right about the prior clarification, I didn't read close enough. And yeah I wouldn't have any remote estimation on whether that transfer number would be close to 25% of all H1B's in a given year.
thanks!
@JeremiahKellick so my reason for specifying "new" is that it seemed cleaner and more likely to get reported. I would expect renewal to be strictly more relaxed than new, so if by some chance data is only available combined, I'll have to try and find some way to get at a clean answer.