H-1B visa violators could face $250,000 fine, 10-year ban under new US bill

H-1B Visa Fraud Crackdown Act seeks to sharply increase penalties and extend debarment periods for employers violating visa rules

A new bill introduced in the US House of Representatives proposes a sharp increase in penalties for certain violations of the H-1B visa programme, including a maximum $250,000 fine and 10-year debarment for serious violations.

 

The H-1B Visa Fraud Crackdown Act (H.R. 10643) was introduced on October 1, 2026, by Representative Beth Van Duyne along with five other Republican lawmakers. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.Importantly, the proposal is not yet US law. It would have to pass Congress and be signed by the President before its provisions could take effect.

 

Serious H-1B violations could attract $250,000 fine

 

Under the proposed legislation, the maximum fine for one category of serious H-1B violations would rise from $35,000 to $250,000.

 

The bill would also increase the minimum period for which an employer could be barred from participating in the H-1B programme from three years to 10 years. 

 

For another category of violations, the proposed penalty would rise from $5,000 to $100,000, while the minimum debarment period would increase from two years to five years.

 

The bill specifically seeks to amend Section 212(n)(2)(C) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act to introduce these higher penalties. 

 

Document fraud penalties also set to rise

• The proposed legislation also targets fraud involving immigration-related documents.
• For one category of document fraud, the fine would increase from a range of $250-$2,000 to $1,000-$10,000.
• For a more serious category, the proposed penalty would rise from $2,000-$5,000 to $20,000-$50,000.

 

What it could mean for Indian H-1B workers

The proposed changes are particularly relevant to Indian professionals and technology companies, given India's significant presence in the US H-1B programme.

 

However, the bill's text focuses on penalties for specified violations of the H-1B programme and document fraud. It does not propose a general increase in fees for ordinary H-1B applications or a blanket penalty on H-1B visa holders.

 

The proposed legislation would primarily increase the financial and programme-participation consequences for entities found to have committed the specified violations.

 

What experts are saying

Immigration Analytics, an immigration-policy publication said the bill is narrower than the headlines suggest. It does not change H-1B visa numbers, eligibility or filing fees; its main objective is to dramatically increase the penalties for employers found violating the programme.

 

"The H-1B Visa Fraud Crackdown Act would raise the ceiling for willful violations from $5,000 to $100,000 per violation and stretch the minimum ban from two years to five. When a willful violation comes with the displacement of an American worker, the ceiling would rise to $250,000 and the minimum ban to ten years.

 

The bill does not cap visas, raise filing fees or redefine who qualifies. It asks a narrower question: what should it cost to break the rules? That framing is the most interesting thing about it," said Immigration Analytics in a blog post. 

 

Why it matters now

The bill lands in the middle of the most concentrated stretch of H-1B pressure in years. In late September, Executive Order 14431 directed federal agencies to weigh an employer’s layoffs at every stage of an H-1B case. Days later, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a Texas staffing firm over a job ad that sought only H-1B candidates.

 

Then Vice President JD Vance said he would support ending the programme. 

 

H-1B bill targets employers, not workers; experts flag staffing firms and ‘willfulness’ disputes as key impact areas.

 

Immigration Analytics identifies staffing and consulting companies as potentially facing the greatest impact because a five- or 10-year debarment could effectively prevent a company dependent on H-1B sponsorship from operating that part of its business. 

 

It also flagged an important legal issue: the bill raises the financial consequences of a finding of “willfulness”, but does not change the underlying standard for determining whether an employer's violation was willful. That could make the question of whether an employer acted deliberately a bigger point of dispute in enforcement cases. 

 

Another point raised by the analysis is that higher penalties alone may not necessarily result in more enforcement, because the bill does not provide additional enforcement agencies, funding or investigative authority.