H-1B Cap Changes: What Would Change & What It Means for Employers
Executive summary of Proposed H-1B Cap Changes
Today: USCIS runs a beneficiary-centric, random selection among unique registrants; if needed, it first fills the regular cap and then runs a second draw from the remaining master’s-eligible candidates. Multiple registrations for the same person don’t improve odds.
Proposed (2025-18473): process shifts to a wage-weighted raffle. Higher wage levels get more entries in the draw: Level IV = 4 chances, Level III = 3 chances, Level II = 2 chances, Level I = 1 chance. Applies to both regular and master’s draws; also used if USCIS must select petitions (not registrations) because registration is suspended. Prevailing-wage rules themselves do not change.
Important: This is not yet in effect. The rule is proposed and subject to change. We expect litigation which may affect implementation.
Side-by-side comparison
| Topic | Current program | Proposed change (2025-18473) |
| Who’s in the lottery | Unique beneficiaries (beneficiary-centric). Extra registrations don’t increase odds. | Same (unique beneficiaries). |
| How selections are made | Random selection to meet the regular cap; then a second random draw from remaining master’s-eligible. | Weighted by wage level: L-IV=4 entries, L-III=3, L-II=2, L-I=1. Used for regular cap and master’s-eligible pool. |
| Weighting basis | N/A | Based on proffered wage mapped to OEWS wage levels for SOC and area of employment. |
| If registration is suspended | Random selection among petitions. | Weighted selection among petitions using OEWS mapping. |
| Impact on DOL wage/PWD | Normal LCA rules; pay higher of actual or prevailing wage. | No change to LCA obligations; weighting does not alter prevailing wage rules. |
| Program integrity backdrop | Beneficiary-centric; limits on duplicate registrations; bona fide job requirements. | Continues; focus is on wage-based selection, integrity rules remain. |
Who may fare better vs. reduced odds
Fares better: Direct-hire employers and roles budgeted at OEWS Level III–IV.
Reduced odds: Entry-level (Level I–II) positions, cost-sensitive industries relying on lower wages.
Practical ramifications by employer type
Product companies and research teams: Odds improve if offers are Level III–IV.
Consulting/third-party placement: Must align wages and SOC with end-client requirements.
Startups/small employers: Level wage budgeting helps; beneficiary-centric system still applies.
Key compliance guardrails that do not change
LCA obligations remain the same (higher of actual or prevailing wage; SOC/level/location accuracy).
Location changes to new areas requiring a new LCA are material changes and require amended petitions.
Challenges to anticipate
Wage-level mapping accuracy: USCIS will map wages to OEWS levels, even if alternate surveys are used.
Multi-site roles: Different prevailing wages across locations affect weighting and LCA.
Third-party placements: End-client requirements control specialty-occupation analysis.
Employers should reach out to their Maggio Kattar attorney to discuss strategies for this and other potential changes.