Legal storms are gathering on two continents, as high-profile government actions in the United States and Bangladesh spark heated debate, mounting lawsuits, and widespread public concern. On September 21, 2025, two separate but equally controversial episodes—one involving a dramatic increase in U.S. H-1B visa fees and the other centering on a Bangladeshi official accused of amassing illegal wealth—have put questions of executive authority, due process, and the rule of law squarely in the spotlight.
In the United States, President Trump’s executive order raising the H-1B visa fee from around $1,000 to an eye-popping $100,000 has sent shockwaves through the tech sector, legal community, and among foreign skilled professionals. According to reporting from Times of India, legal experts are bracing for a deluge of urgent lawsuits aimed at blocking the fee hike before it can take effect. The heart of the legal battle? Whether the president actually has the power, under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), to impose such a hefty financial condition on visa applicants.
Abhinav Tripathi, an immigration attorney and founder of Protego Law Group, explained to Times of India that while Section 212(f) does allow the president to suspend the entry of noncitizens—a power the Supreme Court upheld in Trump v. Hawaii (2018)—that case involved a straightforward travel ban, not a financial requirement. “Conditioning entry on a six-figure payment looks more like taxation, which only Congress can impose. Further, Congress has already set the H-1B fee structure. A presidential proclamation cannot override that with a new payment scheme,” Tripathi said.
Tech companies, who rely heavily on the H-1B program to fill critical workforce gaps, are especially alarmed. Visa experts warn that Indian nationals, who form the largest group of H-1B holders, will be hit hardest by the change. The move has already sown confusion and anxiety among employers, universities, and skilled professionals around the globe.
Tripathi also pointed out a procedural wrinkle: while the proclamation itself isn’t subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal agencies tasked with implementing it—namely the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS)—are. “If DHS or DOS begins enforcing the $100,000 payment condition immediately, without going through notice and comment rulemaking, those enforcement actions are vulnerable under the APA—which calls for an appropriate procedure (such as public notice and inviting comments) to be followed prior to implementation,” he added.
Other legal experts echo these concerns. Immigration attorney Cyrus D Mehta told Times of India that the new rule “is so blatantly unlawful that it rewrites parts of the INA.” He noted that the proclamation fails to carve out exceptions for those who already hold H-1B visas or who were present in the U.S. when the order took effect—a sharp departure from prior bans, which typically included such exceptions. “I also think H-1B visa holders with prior residence in the US going back over a decade (especially India-born H-1B holders caught in the green card backlogs) would have a strong due process claim if they were briefly outside the US and could not get back by the cut-off deadline under the new proclamation,” Mehta said.
Immigration attorney Ashwin Sharma went even further, describing the measure as “executive taxation without Congress approval” and predicting swift legal challenges. “Section 212(f) of INA allows suspending entry, but it does not authorise a $100,000 charge or rewriting USCIS and DOS fee schedules by executive proclamation alone. This fee is unlawful on its face and appears... calibrated to deliver a chilling effect on employers, and campuses,” Sharma argued.
Doug Rand, a former DHS official, took a more cynical view, calling the move “political theatre.” In his words: “This isn’t real policy—it’s fan service for immigration restrictionists. Trump gets his headlines and inflicts a jolt of panic, and doesn’t care whether this survives first contact with the courts.”
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has been especially vocal in its condemnation. Jeff Joseph, the organization’s president, said, “America’s need for talented foreign professionals to fill critical workforce gaps, keep the economy moving forward, and create new jobs has not changed under the Trump administration. But overnight, this administration has turned the high-skilled H-1B programme into a ‘pay-to-play’ system and has effectively shut out teachers, non-profits, researchers, rural doctors, clergy, and other professionals who simply can’t afford Trump’s elitist revisioning of the H-1B programme. Rather than working with Congress to strengthen and revitalise this critical high-skilled worker programme, the president has overstepped his executive authority on a proposal that will undermine innovation and prevent businesses both large and small from accessing the talent they need.”
Whether the $100,000 fee survives court scrutiny or is blocked by immediate injunctions, one thing is clear: the proclamation has already created a climate of uncertainty and fear among those who depend on the H-1B program.
Meanwhile, halfway across the world in Bangladesh, another legal drama is unfolding. On the same day, Bangladesh Police issued a public clarification regarding the travel of National Board of Revenue (NBR) Member Mohammad Belal Hossain Chowdhury, who is currently under investigation for allegedly amassing wealth beyond known sources. Social media erupted with criticism when it was revealed that Chowdhury had traveled abroad, despite a widely reported travel ban.
But according to a statement posted on the verified Facebook page of Bangladesh Police (as reported by Dhaka Tribune and other outlets), the situation is more nuanced. On February 2, 2025, a Dhaka court had indeed imposed a travel ban on Chowdhury and his wife, Hosna Ferdous Sumi, over graft charges brought by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). The allegations? Chowdhury is accused of acquiring vast properties both at home and abroad—particularly in Canada—using money allegedly obtained through corruption. The ACC’s petition also claimed that Chowdhury had invested in developer companies, real estate firms, and the share market with illicit funds.
However, on September 9, 2025, the Dhaka Metropolitan Senior Special Judge’s Court lifted the travel restriction and granted Chowdhury permission to travel overseas. The Internal Resources Division subsequently issued a government order authorizing his official trip, and the Immigration Police processed his departure in accordance with these legal directives.
“The claim that he traveled abroad despite a court ban is false and misleading,” Bangladesh Police asserted in their public statement. The clarification highlights the often complex interplay between legal orders, government procedures, and public perception in high-profile corruption cases.
Chowdhury, who previously served as commissioner of Benapole Customs House, remains under investigation by the ACC. The probe is focused not only on his own alleged illicit wealth, but also on the assets and investments of his family members. As the investigation continues, the case serves as a test of Bangladesh’s commitment to accountability and transparency at the highest levels of government.
Both the U.S. H-1B fee hike and the Bangladeshi corruption probe underscore the far-reaching consequences of executive action and legal oversight. Whether in the halls of Washington or the courts of Dhaka, the stakes for due process, economic opportunity, and the rule of law have rarely felt higher.