US Student Work Visa Fees Could Hit Latin Americans

UNITED STATES · ANALYSIS

Proposed optional practical training fees of $70,000 per student could make US post-graduation work financially impractical for many Latin American students, though the rule is not yet law. The change would shift costs onto universities, which could pass them to students or employers, altering hiring and study decisions across the hemisphere.

The United States has long been the primary destination for Latin American students seeking higher education and professional experience. This analysis explains what the proposed optional practical training fees mean for students, universities, employers, and the broader relationship between the US and Latin America, drawing on the USA & Canada Intelligence Brief.

What Optional Practical Training Actually Is

Optional Practical Training, or OPT, is temporary employment authorization for eligible F-1 international students. The job must be directly related to the student’s field of study, and the student needs a recommendation from a designated school official before applying to US Citizenship and Immigration Services for employment authorization.

OPT can be used before completion of a degree, known as pre-completion OPT, or after graduation, known as post-completion OPT. The programme allows up to 12 months of work authorization for a qualifying degree level. It is not a separate work visa or permanent-residence programme; it is employment authorization connected to F-1 student status.

The practical value of OPT is that it allows graduates to gain US work experience and potentially transition later to another status, such as an employer-sponsored H-1B visa. Students already pay a USCIS filing fee of $470 online or $520 on paper for the OPT work-permit application. That existing student application charge is separate from the proposed university fee.

For Latin American students, OPT often provides the bridge between an F-1 student visa and a first US job, particularly in technology, engineering, finance, health care and research. Without it, many graduates would have to leave the country immediately after completing their degrees.

The STEM OPT Extension and Its Importance

STEM OPT is an extension available to qualifying graduates whose degrees are in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. It can provide additional post-completion employment authorization beyond the standard OPT period.

STEM OPT has additional conditions, including employment with an eligible employer and participation in the formal training-plan system. For Latin American graduates in technical fields, this extension is especially important because it offers more time to develop professional experience and seek longer-term immigration sponsorship.

The $30,000 charge would not be limited to STEM OPT; it would apply to subsequent OPT recommendations, including other later OPT requests.

What DHS Has Proposed and Its Status

DHS says the fees would be deposited in the US Treasury. The department has cited alleged fraud and abuse in the programme as a rationale.

Existing OPT and STEM OPT procedures remain available, and universities continue processing recommendations under the current system.

The final amount, legal language, exemptions and implementation date could therefore change. Litigation by universities, higher-education associations or business groups could delay or block implementation; the proposal itself does not guarantee that the fee will ever become enforceable.

The Actors and What Each Wants

Markwayne Mullin leads the Department of Homeland Security, whose stated rationale is to combat fraud and abuse in the OPT programme and to protect US workers. The fees would go to the US Treasury as a miscellaneous receipt, and DHS says Immigration and Customs Enforcement would not retain them.

US universities and colleges face the direct financial risk. A school would have to pay before making the recommendation, even though the student may later fail to obtain employment authorization or may not remain with an employer. Higher-education institutions face several possible responses: absorb the charge as a recruitment or financial-aid cost, create a surcharge for international students, require a student or employer reimbursement agreement, restrict OPT recommendations to selected programmes or students, or stop recommending OPT altogether.

Employers generally do not pay the proposed fee directly at the point of hiring because the charge is tied to the university’s OPT recommendation. Nevertheless, DHS expressly indicates that schools may pass the cost to employers. That could alter hiring decisions in two ways: employers may avoid candidates whose university requires reimbursement, or employers may insist that the student remain responsible for the cost, even where the student has limited bargaining power.

International students, including those from Latin America, face the indirect economic burden. The direct legal burden would sit with schools, but the economic burden could reach students through new university fees, reduced scholarships or financial aid, fewer OPT recommendations, employer reimbursement demands, lower acceptance rates for international applicants, and reduced access to US work experience after graduation.

The Economic and Business Stakes

The proposal would complicate university budgeting. A school cannot easily predict how many graduating F-1 students will request OPT, whether those students will later request STEM extensions, or whether a student will receive authorization after the university has paid. Some institutions could be better positioned than others. Large research universities with substantial international enrollment may have more resources, while smaller colleges and regional institutions could face a sharper incentive to eliminate the service.

For employers, OPT has traditionally offered a period in which an international graduate can work without immediately requiring H-1B sponsorship. A large additional cost could eliminate that advantage and push companies toward US graduates or candidates already holding unrestricted work authorization. The proposal could also affect early-career labour markets. DHS estimates annualised costs of about $4.1 billion, mostly from lost OPT participation. That figure is a DHS estimate, not an independently verified loss.

The risk is greatest for students who need post-graduation earnings to repay education costs or support families in Latin America. A student may complete a US degree expecting a year or more of work authorization, only to find that the university has decided the fee is unaffordable. The proposal also increases uncertainty for students making decisions years in advance. A person applying for a US degree in 2026 may not seek OPT until 2028 or later, after additional rulemaking, litigation or policy changes.

How Many Latin American Students Are Affected

DHS has published the proposed fee structure but not a verified country-by-country count of Latin American students who are currently on OPT or who would seek OPT during the relevant period. That distinction matters. Several figures are often conflated: Latin American students enrolled in US higher education, F-1 students from Latin America, students eligible for OPT, students actually applying for OPT, students who would be recommended after the rule’s effective date, and STEM students potentially seeking the additional 24-month extension.

These are different populations. A reliable impact estimate would require DHS or the Department of State to publish the relevant data by nationality or region, ideally separating active OPT participants, first-time OPT recommendations and STEM OPT extensions. DHS’s reported estimate of $12.4 billion in annual revenue cannot itself be converted into a Latin American student count because it appears to cover the entire affected population, not Latin American nationals specifically.

Likewise, multiplying the number of Latin American F-1 students by $70,000 would overstate exposure because not every student becomes eligible for OPT, not every eligible student uses it, and some students would not seek a STEM extension. The defensible conclusion is that the number of Latin American students affected has not been publicly established. The affected population is potentially substantial, but a precise regional estimate requires official DHS, SEVP or State Department data that distinguish nationality, OPT participation and STEM OPT extensions.

Canada as an Alternative

Canada already offers an alternative post-study route through the Post-Graduation Work Permit, or PGWP. The Canadian government describes the PGWP as an open work permit for graduates of eligible programmes at designated learning institutions. Canada’s rules are not identical to OPT: OPT is tied to the student’s F-1 status and employment related to the field of study, while the PGWP is an open work permit for eligible graduates.

Canada also states that, from April 1, 2026, post-secondary international students do not need a separate co-op work permit for student work placements such as internships or co-op placements. For Latin American applicants, Canada may therefore become more attractive if US universities pass on the proposed fees or reduce OPT access.

However, the comparison should not be overstated. Canada has its own limits, including changing eligibility rules, financial requirements, housing costs and immigration-policy adjustments. Students should compare the full pathway—tuition, work authorization, labour-market access and permanent-residence prospects—rather than treating the PGWP as a guaranteed substitute.

What It Means for the United States and Latin America

For the United States, the proposal could reduce the pipeline of international talent into early-career positions, particularly in technology, engineering and research. Universities may see declining international enrollment, which would affect tuition revenue and the diversity of campus communities. Employers may find fewer qualified candidates available for roles that traditionally relied on OPT as a bridge to longer-term sponsorship.

For Latin America, the proposal could mean fewer students gaining US work experience, which often translates into skills, networks and capital that benefit home countries. Students from middle-income Latin American families may be priced out of the US post-graduation route even when tuition and living expenses have already been paid. The proposal is therefore more consequential than its legal structure suggests: a fee imposed on universities could function economically as a fee on students or employers.

The relationship between the US and Latin America in higher education has been built on the promise that a US degree can lead to professional opportunity. If that promise weakens, students may look elsewhere, and the long-term ties between US institutions and Latin American communities could erode.

The Scenarios

One scenario is that DHS adopts the rule largely as proposed. Universities would then face immediate decisions about whether to absorb the costs, pass them to students, or restrict OPT recommendations. Large research universities might continue offering OPT, while smaller institutions could eliminate the service, creating a two-tier system for international students.

A second scenario is that DHS modifies the rule after public comments, perhaps reducing the fee amounts, creating exemptions for public universities or non-profit institutions, or allowing deferred payment. That would soften the immediate impact but still introduce significant new costs into the system.

A third scenario is that litigation blocks or delays implementation. Universities, higher-education associations or business groups could challenge the rule on procedural or substantive grounds. That would leave the current system in place while courts consider the matter, potentially for years.

A fourth scenario is that the proposal prompts a broader shift toward Canada and other destinations. If US universities reduce OPT access, Latin American students may increasingly choose Canadian institutions or other countries with clearer post-study work pathways. That would have long-term consequences for US competitiveness in attracting global talent.

What It Means for You

If you are a US employer, the proposal could reduce the pool of international graduates available for early-career roles, particularly in technical fields. You may need to plan for higher recruitment costs or adjust hiring timelines if universities restrict OPT recommendations.

If you are a US university administrator, the proposal creates immediate budgeting uncertainty. You should assess how many of your F-1 students currently seek OPT and STEM OPT extensions, and consider whether your institution can absorb the proposed fees or would need to pass them to students or employers.

If you are a US investor or business leader, the proposal could affect sectors that rely on international talent, including technology, engineering, health care and research. A reduction in OPT participation could tighten labour markets for skilled early-career workers and shift talent flows toward other countries.

What Is Not Known

Several important questions cannot yet be answered definitively. Whether DHS will issue a final rule remains uncertain. Whether the $70,000 and $30,000 amounts will remain unchanged is unknown. Whether exemptions will be created for public universities, non-profit institutions, scholarships or particular fields has not been determined.

Whether schools will be permitted to defer payment or recover it from employers is unclear. Whether courts will block or suspend the rule cannot be predicted. How universities will calculate and collect any pass-through charge has not been established. Whether USCIS or SEVP will publish nationality-specific data for Latin American students remains to be seen.

How many students would lose OPT access if schools decline to pay is unknown. Whether employers would absorb the cost or pass it to students is uncertain. The precise number of Latin American students affected has not been publicly established.

What to Watch

Watch for whether DHS publishes a final rule before the end of 2026 or early 2027. Watch for whether universities, higher-education associations or business groups file litigation challenging the rule. Watch for whether DHS publishes nationality-specific data on OPT participation that would clarify the impact on Latin American students.

Watch for whether Canadian institutions report increased applications from Latin American students in the 2027 admissions cycle. Watch for whether US universities announce changes to their OPT recommendation policies in response to the proposal. The coming months will determine whether this proposal becomes law, is modified, or is blocked.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is optional practical training?

Optional Practical Training, or OPT, is temporary employment authorization for eligible F-1 international students. The job must be directly related to the student’s field of study, and the student needs a recommendation from a designated school official before applying to US Citizenship and Immigration Services for employment authorization.

Are the proposed optional practical training fees in effect?

No. The rule is a proposal published in the Federal Register on 8 October 2026, and public comments close on 9 November 2026.

What is STEM OPT?

STEM OPT is an extension available to qualifying graduates whose degrees are in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. It can provide additional post-completion employment authorization beyond the standard OPT period.

How many Latin American students are affected by the proposed fees?

The number of Latin American students affected has not been publicly established. A precise regional estimate requires official DHS, SEVP or State Department data that distinguish nationality, OPT participation and STEM OPT extensions.

What is the current OPT application fee?

Students already pay a USCIS filing fee of $470 online or $520 on paper for the OPT work-permit application. That existing student application charge is separate from the proposed university fee.

Could universities pass the proposed fees to students?

Yes. DHS says institutions could pass the cost to the student, the broader student body or an employer. The proposal would not formally charge the student, but the economic burden could reach students through new university fees or reduced financial aid.