# The Sponsorship Path Read: Proceed, Budget-Gate, Time It, or Not This Req

*Score a sponsorship-dependent candidate on six dimensions and return one of four verdicts, with a dated cost class a second recruiter would reproduce.*

- Canonical URL: https://www.refolk.ai/guides/candidate-sponsorship-path-read
- Pillar: Recruiting and sourcing
- Format: Framework
- Published: 2026-11-11
- Last reviewed: 2026-11-11
- Reading time: 24 min
- Keywords: can recruiters ask about visa sponsorship, candidate needs sponsorship should we proceed, hiring a candidate on h-1b transfer, opt candidate h-1b lottery odds by wage level, stem opt time remaining hiring decision, h-1b sponsorship cost and timeline for employers

## Key takeaways

- Recruiters should ask only the two work-authorization questions the DOJ's Immigrant and Employee Rights Section has named as appropriate and record the answers word for word. Asking which visa someone holds or when their OPT ends goes past that line.
- Under H-1B weighted selection, DHS projected selection odds of 15.29% at wage Level I, 30.58% at Level II, 45.87% at Level III, and 61.16% at Level IV. The old random lottery gave 29.6% at every level.
- USCIS applies the lowest wage level across all registrations filed for the same person, so a single Level I registration from another employer pulls a Level III offer down to Level I odds.
- For a large employer, mandatory government fees are $3,595 for a new cap-subject petition and $3,380 for a transfer, before the $2,965 premium processing fee. The contested $100,000 payment makes the real cost difference, so every verdict must be stamped with the court order that controls it.
- The $100,000 payment exemption depends on the filing type, not the person. A candidate who leaves the US before their change of status is decided turns an exempt case into consular processing.
- Refolk's index holds 353,077 US profiles titled Software Engineer at entry level, 14.3 times the Canadian pool of 24,697. Pool depth like this should be set in the req's written sponsorship policy, not judged one candidate at a time.

A candidate you sourced and want to move forward has just told you they will need sponsorship. Today you have to decide whether to keep them in process, escalate for budget and counsel sign-off, park them until a filing window, or close them out for this req. This guide is for in-house recruiters, sourcers, talent leads, and founders who face "candidate needs sponsorship, should we proceed?" without a mobility team. It gives you six scored dimensions, four verdicts, and a dated cost-and-timeline lookup. The method is built so that a second recruiter scoring the same case reaches the same answer.

## What does the Sponsorship Path Read decide?

The read gives one of four verdicts for one candidate against one req: proceed, budget-gate, time it, or not this req. Every verdict carries a dated cost class and a timeline class. That way the person signing off knows what they are approving and when its facts were last checked.

- **Proceed.** Every dimension scores clear, or the only friction is something the req's written policy already pre-approves. Keep the candidate in process at normal speed.
- **Budget-gate.** The case is viable but raises a cost or legal question the policy does not pre-approve. Escalate to the budget owner and immigration counsel before the next interview round, not after the offer.
- **Time it.** The candidate cannot start on the req's start date on their current work authorization, but a dated event would let them, such as a registration window or an October 1 start. Park them and set a re-engagement date.
- **Not this req.** The written policy excludes sponsorship, or one dimension is a hard block. Close the candidate out for this req and record why, so they can be reconsidered for a req whose policy fits.

The read has two halves on purpose. The six-dimension score describes the case, and it does not change when a court rules. The cost and odds lookup is dated: fees, litigation status, and projected odds all change, and the lookup is where those changes land. When a rule changes, you re-run the lookup, not the judgement.

#### Where the four verdicts sit

Horizontal axis runs from Low cost and counsel exposure to High cost and counsel exposure. Vertical axis runs from Start blocked on a future event to Can start on current authorization.

| Quadrant | What it means |
| --- | --- |
| Proceed | Keep in process at normal speed |
| Budget-gate | Escalate for budget and counsel sign-off now |
| Time it | Park with a dated re-engagement trigger |
| Not this req | Close out for this req and record the reason |

*The matrix shows the shape of the call, and the ordered verdict rules in this guide decide which quadrant a case lands in.*

## Can recruiters ask about visa sponsorship, and what exactly?

Yes, but only two questions. The Department of Justice's Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER, the federal office that enforces anti-discrimination rules in hiring) has named two questions as appropriate. The first is whether the applicant is legally authorized to work in the US. The second is: "Will you now or in the future require sponsorship for employment visa status (e.g., H-1B visa status)?"

IER has since written that it has repeatedly cautioned employers against pre-screening questions beyond those two, because extra questions can confuse applicants and lead to discriminatory decisions. An employer that will not sponsor may say so in its job postings, which is cleaner than screening it out with more questions.

The sources disagree on one point. An older letter from IER's predecessor office, as one law firm reports it, supported follow-ups such as "are you currently in a period of Optional Practical Training (OPT)?" OPT is the work authorization an F-1 student holds after their studies. IER's later position cuts against those follow-ups. Treat the two questions as the safe line and everything beyond them as contested. If you want to ask more, get counsel's written approval first.

> **Rule:** Two questions, verbatim, then stop
>
> Ask only the two IER questions and record the answers word for word. Every other fact in this read must be either volunteered by the candidate or gathered by counsel, never prompted by the recruiter.

### What counts as a volunteered fact

Candidates often explain their own situation unprompted. You may record what they offer, as long as you mark each item as volunteered and never prompt for a missing piece. Four volunteered facts matter most:

- **Current status**, such as OPT, STEM OPT, or H-1B.
- **I-797 validity dates.** The I-797 is the USCIS approval notice, and its dates show how long the current H-1B runs.
- **PERM filing date.** PERM is the labor certification that begins most employment-based green cards.
- **I-140 stage and priority date.** The I-140 is the immigrant petition. The priority date is the candidate's place in the green-card queue, and it is "current" when that queue has reached it.

If a fact you need was not volunteered, score that dimension as unknown. Unknown is a legitimate input to the verdict rules, not a reason to ask.

**Two-question intake and volunteered-facts log**

```
Q1. Are you legally authorized to work in the United States?
Answer (verbatim):

Q2. Will you now or in the future require sponsorship for employment visa status (e.g., H-1B visa status)?
Answer (verbatim):

Volunteered facts (record only what the candidate offered unprompted)
- Current status, as stated: ___ [volunteered]
- I-797 validity dates, as stated: ___ [volunteered]
- PERM filing date, as stated: ___ [volunteered]
- I-140 stage and priority date status, as stated: ___ [volunteered]
- Travel plans while a petition would be pending, as stated: ___ [volunteered]

Questions asked beyond Q1 and Q2: none
Recorded by / date:
```

*Load both questions into your ATS exactly as written, and check question 1 against the IER letter's wording before you do.*

## The six scoring dimensions and what each proves

Score each dimension 0 (clear), 1 (friction), or 2 (block). Use "unknown" when the facts were neither volunteered nor confirmed by counsel. The rubric below is the whole scoring model, and the subsections explain what each score proves and how it can mislead you.

| Dimension | 0 (clear) | 1 (friction) | 2 (block) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Path type | Transfer or extension in US | Change of status, or alternate category | No path counsel can name |
| Cap-counted status | Already counted, or cap-exempt | Cap-subject, needs selection | n/a |
| Runway | Two or more windows reachable | One window reachable | No window reachable |
| Wage level (cap-subject only) | Level III or IV | Level II, or Level I with two windows | Level I with one window |
| Travel and consular exposure | In-country filing, no-travel note accepted | Consular path or travel volunteered | Consular-only, payment collected, unfunded |
| Green-card stage | Six-year limit outside req tenure | AC21 branch applies | Limit inside tenure, no branch |

### Path type

Path type is the filing route. If you are hiring a candidate on an H-1B transfer, they already hold H-1B status, and under AC21 portability (the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act rules) they may start the new job once the transfer petition has been received. A change of status from F-1 converts a student on OPT to H-1B without leaving the US. Consular processing means the petition is approved for notification abroad and the person gets the visa at a consulate. Alternate categories (TN, E-3, H-1B1, O-1) are real paths, but I could not establish their costs from primary sources, so they always score 1 and go to counsel.

**What it proves:** which fee stack and which timeline class apply. **When it lies:** a filing that assumed in-country adjudication can turn into consular processing if the candidate travels before a decision. The travel dimension exists to catch this.

### Cap-counted status

The H-1B cap is the annual limit on new H-1B numbers: 85,000 in total, made up of 65,000 regular numbers plus 20,000 for holders of US master's degrees. Someone already counted against the cap skips the lottery. Someone cap-subject needs a selected registration. A cap-exempt employer skips the cap altogether, and counsel should confirm that status.

**What it proves:** whether the case depends on a lottery at all. **When it lies:** a candidate's volunteered "I was on H-1B before" is not a confirmed cap count. Counsel confirms the count from the I-797.

### Runway

Runway is the number of months of work authorization left, dated against the cap calendar. It is what decides a "STEM OPT time remaining" hiring decision. OPT gives 12 months, and students in STEM fields can apply for a 24-month extension, bringing the total to up to 36 months. Registration opens in a short March window (the window this research covered ran from noon ET March 4 to noon ET March 19), and the earliest start for a selected petition is October 1. Cap-gap coverage (the bridge that extends a student's status while a cap petition is pending) runs until April 1 of the H-1B fiscal year or the petition's start date, whichever is earlier. Counsel confirms whether it applies.

Count how many registration windows, each with its October 1 start, fall inside the runway. That count is the score.

**What it proves:** how many lottery draws the candidate gets before their authorization runs out. **When it lies:** OPT and STEM OPT together allow only 150 days of unemployment, so a candidate between jobs is using up runway you cannot see unless they tell you. If the end date was not volunteered, mark runway as unknown. Do not estimate it.

### Wage level

Wage level is the prevailing-wage band, Level I to IV, that the offered salary falls into for the job's SOC code (the federal occupation classification) and worksite. It comes from OEWS, the federal wage survey behind those levels. Score it only for cap-subject cases. Use the lowest level across all worksites.

**What it proves:** the candidate's projected selection odds. **When it lies:** if another employer has registered the same person, USCIS uses the lowest wage level across all registrations. You cannot see those registrations, so your level is a ceiling on the candidate's odds, not a guarantee.

### Travel and consular exposure

This dimension asks whether the case depends on consular processing, or on the candidate not travelling while a petition is pending. It has its own line because the contested $100,000 payment attaches to a filing type, not to a person.

**What it proves:** whether the contested payment line applies to this case. **When it lies:** a case scored 0 at intake turns into consular processing if the candidate leaves the US before their change of status is decided. The no-travel note in the offer plan is what keeps a 0 a 0.

### Green-card stage

This dimension only matters when the six-year H-1B limit falls inside the req's minimum tenure. AC21 offers two ways past six years:

- **Section 106(a):** one-year extensions for anyone whose PERM or I-140 was filed at least 365 days earlier.
- **Section 104(c):** three-year extensions, which require an approved I-140 (not a pending one) and a priority date that is not current.

**What it proves:** whether the candidate can stay through the tenure the req needs. **When it lies:** a pending I-140 scored as 104(c). A pending I-140 is a section 106 question.

### From scores to a verdict

Apply these five rules in order and stop at the first one that fires. The order is what makes the read reproducible.

1. **Policy gate.** The req's written policy excludes sponsorship and the answer to Q2 is yes: **not this req**.
2. **Hard block.** Any dimension scores 2: **not this req**.
3. **Calendar block.** The candidate cannot start on the req's start date on current authorization, but a dated event (a registration window, an October 1 start, a 365-day PERM mark) would let them: **time it**, with that event's date as the re-engagement trigger.
4. **Unapproved friction.** Any dimension scores 1, or is unknown, and the written policy does not pre-approve it: **budget-gate**.
5. **Otherwise:** **proceed**.

## OPT candidate H-1B lottery odds by wage level

Under weighted selection, each registration gets as many lottery entries as its wage level number, so a Level IV registration gets four entries and a Level I registration gets one. The rule took effect February 27 ahead of the March registration window it first governed, and it covers all 85,000 cap numbers. DHS published projected odds when it finalised the rule.

| Level | Entries | DHS projected odds | Share of cap-subject receipts | Odds vs old 29.6% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 1 | 15.29% | 28% | 0.52x |
| II | 2 | 30.58% | 55% | 1.03x |
| III | 3 | 45.87% | 12% | 1.55x |
| IV | 4 | 61.16% | 5% | 2.07x |

The receipt shares come from Table 12 of the final rule, which counts 94,900 cap-subject petition receipts. The last column is derived by dividing each level's odds by the 29.6% DHS estimated for the old random lottery. DHS estimated 89,911 Level I registrations and 177,216 Level II registrations.

Three practical readings follow:

- **Most early-career candidates sit in the lowest-odds bands.** Levels I and II together account for 83% of receipts. Level II's 30.58% is almost exactly the old 29.6%, so raising an offer only changes the odds in a meaningful way if it reaches Level III.
- **More applications can mean worse odds.** A candidate whose only other registration is at Level I is scored at Level I everywhere, at 15.29%, even if your offer is Level III.
- **Fewer registrations did not help entry-level candidates.** In the first weighted season, registrations fell 38.5%, from 343,981 to 211,600. Yet Level I made up only 17.7% of selected registrations, against 28% of receipts, and 71.5% of selectees held US advanced degrees, up from 57%. After that season, USCIS announced both caps reached with no second draw.

These odds are DHS projections, not observed results. Selection rates by wage level have not been published. When USCIS publishes them, replace the projected column and keep the rest of the read unchanged.

## H-1B sponsorship cost and timeline for employers: the dated lookup

The government fees themselves differ by only a few hundred dollars between paths. The big variable is a contested $100,000 payment whose status depends on litigation. The lookup therefore has to record which court order it relies on, not only the fee schedule.

| Path (large employer, 26+ FTE) | Registration | I-129 | ACWIA | Fraud | Asylum | Total excl. premium |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New cap-subject (change of status) | $215 | $780 | $1,500 | $500 | $600 | $3,595 |
| Transfer | $0 | $780 | $1,500 | $500 | $600 | $3,380 |
| Premium, any path | - | - | - | - | - | +$2,965 |

The transfer total is derived from the line items. The $215 registration fee is charged per candidate and is not refunded if the registration is not selected. Premium processing buys a USCIS action within 15 business days. It rose from $2,805 to $2,965 under a rule effective March 1. Small employers pay lower amounts on the I-129, ACWIA, and asylum lines, and sources disagree on the small-employer I-129 figure ($390 against $460). Check it on the USCIS G-1055 fee schedule before quoting it. These are government fees only. Counsel's fees are separate, and this guide does not cover them.

### Cost and timeline classes

Every verdict carries one cost class and one timeline class:

- **C1 Transfer.** $3,380 in government fees. Timeline T-receipt: can start once the transfer petition is received.
- **C2 New cap-subject.** $3,595 in government fees. Timeline T-October: the earliest start is October 1 after a selected March registration, with cap-gap possibly bridging to April 1.
- **C3 Consular exposure.** C1 or C2 fees, plus the $100,000 payment line at its dated status.
- **C4 Alternate category.** Cost not established. Counsel must quote it before any verdict except budget-gate.
- **Modifier P.** Add $2,965 when the timeline needs premium processing.
- **Timeline T-AC21.** The case relies on a section 106(a) or 104(c) extension, and counsel owns the date.

### The $100,000 payment, as last checked

The proclamation was issued September 19, 2025 and covers petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025. It generally applied only to petitions filed for, or only approvable for, consular notification. USCIS exempted amendments, extensions, changes of employer, and changes of status inside the US. A case moves back into paying if USCIS finds the person ineligible for the in-country benefit, or if the person leaves the US before a change of status is decided. Employers paid it for only about 700 individuals.

The controlling orders, at the last check:

- **June 8, 2026:** the District of Massachusetts vacated the implementing guidance in State of California v. Mullin.
- **July 24, 2026:** the First Circuit refused to block that ruling.
- **September 30, 2026:** a San Francisco court vacated the collection policies under Proclamations 10973 and 11069.

On that basis, employers were not required to pay at the last check. Separately, DHS has proposed a $103,265 fee. One firm reads the proposal as exempting cap-exempt employers, extensions, amendments, and changes of employer, but not changes of status. That reading comes from a single source and I have not verified it against the proposed rule, so check the rule text before relying on it.

> **Watch out:** A cost class without an order date is stale on arrival
>
> Never write "$0 proclamation fee" on a verdict. Write the controlling order, its date, and the date you checked it, and re-check before filing.

#### What changes when the rules change

1. **Written req policy** - Set before any candidate; lists what is pre-approved
2. **Six-dimension score** - Stable description of this case; survives rule changes
3. **Cost and odds lookup** - Fee schedule, projected odds, cap calendar; dated
4. **Controlling order** - The court order or rule behind the fee line; re-check before filing

*Re-run the bottom two layers whenever a rule or ruling changes; the top two only change when the req or the case does.*

Budget-gate cases need counsel who already understands weighted selection and the fee litigation, and finding that person is often slower than scoring the case. [Refolk](/) handles this as a plain-English request and returns attorneys whose public writing shows they have worked through the rule.

I ran this search: `Immigration attorneys in California who have written about H-1B weighted selection` - [see the full result list](https://www.refolk.ai/s/33mn9q99hd).

*A list of California immigration attorneys whose public writing covers weighted selection, so you can shortlist counsel for budget-gate cases before you need them.*

## Writing the req's sponsorship policy before the first candidate

The policy has to be written per req, before you see a single candidate, because the verdict rules compare every case against it. A policy written after you meet a candidate is a decision about that person dressed up as a standard, and a second recruiter cannot reproduce it.

At minimum, the policy should state:

- Whether the req sponsors at all, and whether the posting says so.
- Which cost classes are pre-approved (for example, C1 and C2 without premium).
- The budget ceiling above which a case is budget-gated.
- The minimum tenure, which sets when the green-card dimension applies.
- The latest acceptable start date, which decides whether "time it" is viable.
- Who signs off on budget-gate cases, and their turnaround.

Pool depth is the input that should shape how generous the policy is.

**353,077 - US profiles titled Software Engineer at entry level in Refolk's index**

For a role this widely held, a not-this-req verdict costs little in replacement depth, so a strict policy is defensible; scarce roles warrant more room for budget-gate.

| Market | Entry-level SWE profiles | Top sampled employers | Top sampled region |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 353,077 | Google 4, Figma 2 | San Francisco 4 |
| Canada | 24,697 | Apple 2 | Vancouver 4 |

In Refolk's index, the US entry-level pool is 14.3 times the Canadian one. The employer and region counts come from a 25-profile sample, so read them as texture rather than distribution. Two limits apply. First, I do not have a reliable senior-level count: a senior query hit a seniority-label mismatch. Count the senior pool for your own req before writing a senior policy. Second, the Canadian count is not a TN-eligible pool. TN depends on citizenship, not where someone lives, and you may not ask about citizenship.

If you want to see how peers word their policies, a Refolk search for heads of talent acquisition at Series B US startups who have posted about visa sponsorship policy finds people you can ask directly.

## Step-by-step: scoring one candidate in a single working session

The procedure runs from intake to verdict in eight steps. The recruiter owns the first five, counsel owns six and seven, and the talent lead owns the verdict. Wage lookup and counsel's input are the slow parts. The intake itself takes about five minutes.

#### The Sponsorship Path Read, in order

1. **Ask only the two permitted questions** - Ask whether the candidate is legally authorized to work in the US and whether they will now or in the future require sponsorship for employment visa status. Record both answers verbatim and ask nothing else.
2. **Log volunteered facts, marked as volunteered** - In the same call, write down anything offered unprompted: current status, I-797 dates, PERM or I-140 stage, travel plans. Mark each fact as volunteered and never prompt for a missing one.
3. **Label path type and cap-counted status** - Classify the case as a transfer, a change of status from F-1, cap-exempt, or an alternate category, and record whether the person is already counted against the cap. Bring in counsel if the label is unclear.
4. **Date the runway against the cap calendar** - Count months of authorization left from volunteered dates and compare the end date with the March registration window, the October 1 start, and cap-gap to April 1. Record the number of reachable windows, or mark runway unknown.
5. **Set the wage level from the lowest worksite** - With the comp team, find the OEWS level for the offered salary, SOC code, and worksite, using the lowest level across worksites. Record Level I to IV and the DHS projected odds.
6. **Flag travel and consular exposure** - Counsel flags any case that depends on consular processing or on travel while a petition is pending. Record the date of the court order currently governing the $100,000 payment.
7. **Place the green-card stage on an AC21 branch** - If the six-year limit falls inside the req's minimum tenure, counsel maps volunteered facts to section 106(a), section 104(c), or neither.
8. **Return the verdict with dated cost and timeline class** - The talent lead applies the five verdict rules in order against the written policy and returns proceed, budget-gate, time it, or not this req. A second recruiter scores the same record and must reach the same verdict.

Practitioners disagree about the order. One law firm's seven-step list puts wage setting before cap season. Another puts the choice between change of status and consular processing first, with the advice "Prefer change of status where it is available." The order above runs cheapest check first. If counsel prefers to settle the filing route before the wage lookup, swap steps 5 and 6. The verdict rules do not depend on the order.

**Sponsorship Path Read verdict record**

```
Candidate / req:
Req policy version and date:
Q1 / Q2 answers (verbatim, from intake):

Path type (transfer | change of status | consular | alternate | unknown):      Score:
Cap-counted status (counted | cap-subject | cap-exempt | unknown):            Score:
Runway end date and registration windows reachable:                           Score:
Wage level (lowest across worksites, SOC code, projected odds):               Score:
Travel and consular exposure (no-travel note accepted? y/n):                  Score:
Green-card stage (n/a | 106(a) | 104(c) | none):                              Score:

Rule that fired (1 to 5):
Verdict (proceed | budget-gate | time it | not this req):
Cost class and government fee figure:
Timeline class and earliest start date:
Controlling fee order, its date, and date checked:
Re-check trigger date:
Scored by / second scorer / match (y/n):
```

*One record per candidate per req; a second recruiter should reach the same verdict from this page alone.*

## How the read goes wrong: failure modes and false positives

Most bad sponsorship calls come from seven predictable mistakes, and each one has a cheap check. These are where a confident verdict turns out wrong, so audit against them before any verdict leaves your desk.

1. **Over-asking.** A recruiter adds "which visa?" or "when does your OPT end?" That goes past the two questions IER has cautioned employers to stay within. *Check:* audit your ATS fields and screening scripts against the exact two questions, and delete anything else.
2. **A "no" that isn't really no.** An OPT candidate answers "no sponsorship needed" because their EAD (the employment authorization document OPT holders carry) lets them work today. That is a false positive, and it will surface after the offer. *Check:* the form must use the "now or in the future" wording exactly as written.
3. **Wrong wage level.** You assign Level II based on one worksite, but there is a lower-paying worksite or the candidate has another registration. USCIS uses the lowest. *Check:* confirm every worksite, and ask counsel how to handle the competing-registration risk you cannot see. One law firm also says the lowest wage in a salary range sets the weighting. That comes from a law firm, not the rule text, so verify it in the Federal Register before you rely on it.
4. **Wrongly marked exempt.** A transfer or change of status is scored as exempt, and then the candidate travels while the petition is pending, which turns the case into consular processing. *Check:* put a "no travel until approval" note in the offer plan, and have the candidate acknowledge it.
5. **Stale fee status.** The cost class says "$0 proclamation fee" without naming the order it rests on. *Check:* stamp every verdict with the controlling orders (June 8 and September 30, 2026, at the last check) and re-check before filing.
6. **Wrong AC21 branch.** A pending I-140 is scored as section 104(c). *Check:* 104(c) requires an approved I-140 and a priority date that is not current. A pending I-140 belongs under section 106.
7. **Treating pool size as eligibility.** Someone reads the Canadian entry-level count as a TN-eligible pool. *Check:* TN depends on citizenship, not location. Rely only on what the candidate volunteers, and never ask about citizenship.

> The fee exemption follows the filing type, not the person, and one trip abroad can change the bill.

> **Watch out:** Unknown is not the same as clear
>
> A dimension you could not score because the facts were not volunteered goes to budget-gate under rule 4. Filling the gap with a guess turns a cautious verdict into a confident wrong one.

## Keeping verdicts current after the next ruling

A verdict is only as current as the dated lookup it rests on. Re-check the lookup at every one of these triggers, and leave the six-dimension score alone unless the case itself has changed.

- **Before any filing.** Re-confirm the controlling order and the fee schedule on the day of filing, not the day of the verdict.
- **On a new court order or rule** affecting the $100,000 payment or the proposed $103,265 fee, including the final rule text on which paths that fee exempts.
- **On a fee schedule change.** Re-check the G-1055 lines, especially the disputed small-employer I-129 figure.
- **When USCIS publishes selection rates by wage level.** Replace the projected odds column with the observed rates.
- **On a "time it" trigger date.** Re-run steps 3 to 8 for parked candidates before the registration window opens.

#### Before the verdict leaves your desk

- [ ] The intake record shows only the two IER questions, each answered verbatim.
- [ ] Every fact beyond the two answers is marked as volunteered or as confirmed by counsel.
- [ ] The sponsorship question on the form reads "now or in the future" exactly as IER worded it.
- [ ] The wage level uses the lowest worksite, and counsel has been asked about competing registrations.
- [ ] Any in-country filing has a no-travel-until-approval note in the offer plan.
- [ ] Any section 104(c) label rests on a volunteered approved I-140 and a priority date that is not current.
- [ ] The verdict names its cost class, timeline class, controlling order, order date, and check date.
- [ ] A second recruiter scored the same record and reached the same verdict.
- [ ] A re-check date is set for before filing, or for the "time it" trigger.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can a recruiter ask which visa a candidate is on?

Not safely. The DOJ's Immigrant and Employee Rights Section has named two questions as appropriate: whether the applicant is legally authorized to work in the US, and whether they will now or in the future require sponsorship for employment visa status. It has repeatedly cautioned employers against pre-screening questions beyond those two. Record whatever status the candidate volunteers, mark it as volunteered, and leave any further fact-gathering to immigration counsel.

### Does a candidate on an H-1B transfer have to go through the lottery again?

Usually not, because a transfer candidate is normally already counted against the cap, and AC21 portability lets them start work once the new employer's transfer petition has been received. Counsel should confirm the cap count from the I-797. Government fees for a large employer come to about $3,380, which skips the $215 registration fee. Premium processing costs $2,965 more if you need USCIS to act within 15 business days.

### Do employers currently have to pay the $100,000 H-1B fee?

At the last check behind this guide they did not. In State of California v. Mullin, the District of Massachusetts vacated the implementing guidance on June 8, 2026. A San Francisco court then vacated the collection policies on September 30, 2026. The status can change again at any time, so stamp every verdict with the controlling order and the date you checked, and re-check before filing.

### An OPT candidate said they don't need sponsorship. Can I treat that as a no?

Only if the question they answered read 'now or in the future'. An OPT candidate can truthfully answer no to a present-tense question because their EAD lets them work today, even though they will need an H-1B later. That answer is a false positive. Check your form and ATS fields against IER's exact wording before you rely on any answer.

### Will raising the salary improve an OPT candidate's H-1B lottery odds?

Only if the raise moves the offer up a wage level, and the move that counts most is from Level II to Level III. DHS projected 30.58% odds at Level II and 45.87% at Level III. Level II is roughly the old 29.6% random rate. If the candidate has a lower-level registration with another employer, USCIS applies the lowest level, which can cancel your raise entirely.

### How much STEM OPT time does a candidate need for it to be worth hiring?

Enough to reach at least one March registration window and its October 1 start, and ideally two windows so the candidate gets two draws. OPT runs 12 months and STEM OPT can extend the total to 36. Combined unemployment is capped at 150 days, so a gap between jobs uses up runway. Score runway only from dates the candidate volunteers.

---

*From the Refolk guide library. I revise these guides rather than replacing them, so the current version is always at https://www.refolk.ai/guides/candidate-sponsorship-path-read*