Labour And Immigration

A second federal judge on Wednesday blocked an unprecedented $100,000 fee imposed by US President Donald Trump on new H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers.

US District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland, California, ruled that US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the State Department failed to follow necessary rule-making procedures before implementing the fee.

Gilliam, who was appointed by then-President Barack Obama, a Democrat, granted a request by a coalition of unions, employers and non-profit organisations to block the agencies from implementing the fee pending the outcome of a lawsuit they filed in October.

The fee was temporarily blocked in June by a federal judge in Boston in a separate case brought by 20 states. A Boston-based appeals court in July declined to pause that decision.

The Department of Homeland Security in August moved to adopt a permanent fee of about $103,000 that, when finalised, will likely face a legal challenge. That case would involve different legal issues from the lawsuits over Trump’s fee, which have focused on the president’s authority to impose such a charge unilaterally.

The $100,000 fee was originally set to expire on September 21, but Trump recently extended it for another year. The extension runs through September 21, 2027, although the fee is currently not being collected because of the court orders.

Democracy Forward, a left-leaning legal group representing the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling in a statement. “Today’s decision ... protects a system that was thrown into chaos overnight,” said Steve Bressler, a lawyer with the group.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest business lobbying group, has filed a third lawsuit challenging the fee. The chamber is appealing a judge’s decision rejecting its claims that Trump lacked authority to impose the charge.

The H-1B programme allows US employers to hire foreign workers with training in specialised fields. Technology companies in particular rely heavily on workers who receive H-1B visas.

The programme provides 65,000 visas annually, with another 20,000 available to workers with advanced degrees. Visas are generally approved for periods of three to six years.

Trump’s order sharply increased the cost of obtaining H-1B visas, which had typically involved fees of about $2,000 to $5,000, depending on various factors.

In imposing the fee, Trump invoked the president’s power under federal immigration law to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals whose admission would be detrimental to US interests. He has said businesses abused the H-1B programme and replaced American workers with cheaper foreign labour.

The Trump administration has also ordered enhanced vetting of H-1B applicants and proposed a new visa selection process that would favour higher-skilled and better-paid workers.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without first giving them an opportunity to raise concerns about the harm they could face there, temporarily restoring a policy that has become an important part of the administration’s immigration enforcement strategy.

The justices granted the Justice Department’s emergency request to put on hold a ruling by Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy, who had found the Department of Homeland Security’s policy on removals to so-called third countries unlawful. The Supreme Court also agreed to hear arguments in the case in December, meaning Tuesday’s action does not finally determine whether the policy is legal.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, with its three liberal justices dissenting from the decision to allow the deportations to resume while the litigation continues.

Murphy’s ruling came in a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrant rights groups on behalf of migrants seeking to prevent the US government from transferring them to third countries without notice and an opportunity to explain why they could face persecution or torture there.

More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to at least 28 or 29 third countries under the policy since it was introduced, according to figures cited in court proceedings and by human rights groups. Mexico has received the largest number, while other destinations have included countries in Africa and elsewhere.

The policy is one of several measures adopted by the Trump administration as part of its broader effort to increase deportations. Immigration enforcement has remained a central priority of the Republican president since he returned to the White House in January 2025.

The administration has sent migrants to countries including South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and the Central African Republic. South Sudan, in particular, is subject to a US State Department warning because of risks including crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.

Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, describing it on social media as a victory for the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the ruling would allow the administration to resume sending people to countries where they could face persecution or torture. She said some migrants could be placed on flights before receiving notice or having an opportunity to raise claims about the risks they face.

In February, Murphy ruled that the third-country deportation policy failed to comply with immigration law procedures and due process protections under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before taking certain adverse actions.

The Supreme Court had previously intervened in the case, suspending an earlier preliminary order by Murphy that had halted the removals. The justices also later lifted restrictions imposed by the judge to protect a group of migrants from being sent to South Sudan.

The litigation began in 2025 after the Department of Homeland Security moved to expand deportations of migrants who could not be returned to countries identified in their removal orders.

Swiftly Removed

Under the policy, migrants could be removed quickly to third countries that had provided diplomatic assurances that they would not be subjected to persecution or torture. Where such assurances had not been provided, migrants were to be informed of their destination and US authorities would consider the risk of persecution or torture if the individual raised such concerns.

In its emergency application to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department described third-country deportations as an important means of removing certain migrants, including people it considers serious criminal offenders.

Murphy and critics of the policy, however, have argued that the measure also affects migrants who had previously received legal protection preventing their return to their countries of origin.

Plaintiffs have alleged that some migrants deported under the policy were subsequently transferred by third countries to their countries of origin, despite having previously received protection from such returns in the United States. Court filings have also described allegations of detention, physical abuse, sexual assault and disappearances involving some deportees.

The plaintiffs have argued that the policy fails to adequately account for the risks faced by migrants, including people who have lived in the United States for years and have no criminal record.

The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of Murphy’s ruling on September 18, prompting the administration to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.

The dispute has been sharply contested since it began. Murphy has previously found that the administration “repeatedly violated, or attempted to violate” his orders in connection with the deportation policy. In 2025, he ruled that the administration had violated another order requiring additional procedures before attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan.

The Supreme Court’s latest action allows the third-country deportations to proceed while the justices prepare to hear the broader legal challenge in December. The final ruling will determine whether the administration can continue using the policy in its current form.

Employees in the UAE private sector who work beyond their normal working hours may be entitled to overtime pay, subject to the limits and conditions set out in the UAE Labour Law.

Under Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021, as amended, normal working hours are generally limited to eight hours a day or 48 hours a week. The law also allows employers to require workers to work overtime, subject to specified limits. Article 19 provides that overtime should generally not exceed two hours a day, while total working hours must not exceed 144 hours over three weeks.

This means that an employer cannot simply treat additional working time as part of an employee's normal duties and refuse payment merely because the extra hours were not covered by a separate written agreement.

Where working conditions require an employee to work beyond normal hours, the additional period is treated as overtime and is subject to statutory compensation.

How Overtime Pay Is Calculated

Article 19 provides that overtime must be paid at the employee's normal hourly wage calculated on the basis of the basic wage, together with an increase of at least 25 per cent.

A higher rate applies in certain circumstances. Where overtime is performed between 10pm and 4am, the worker is generally entitled to the normal hourly wage calculated on the basic wage plus an increase of at least 50 per cent. Employees working according to shifts are excluded from this particular provision.

The law also provides separate compensation where an employee is required to work on the weekly rest day specified in the employment contract or work regulations. Depending on the circumstances, the worker must receive another day off or payment based on the normal working-day wage plus an increase of at least 50 per cent of the basic wage.

These provisions are important because overtime is not simply a matter of whether an employer and employee signed a separate document before the additional work was performed. The legal question can also involve whether the additional hours were actually worked and whether they were performed at the employer's request or with the employer's knowledge and approval.

A Contract Does Not Automatically Remove Overtime Rights

An employee may have a contractual working schedule that differs from the general statutory maximum, depending on the nature of the employment and applicable legal provisions. Certain categories and working arrangements are subject to specific rules under the implementing regulations.

For example, an employee may have agreed to work nine hours a day under an employment arrangement. If the employer subsequently requires the employee to work an additional hour beyond the applicable normal working hours, the employee may have a claim for overtime, provided the statutory conditions are satisfied.

The fact that the employer did not sign a separate overtime agreement does not, by itself, determine whether the additional hours qualify for compensation. What can become decisive in a dispute is evidence showing that the employer required, authorised or knowingly permitted the employee to work those additional hours.

Proof Can Become Critical In An Overtime Dispute

An employee seeking payment for overtime should therefore preserve evidence showing both that the additional work was performed and that it was connected to the employer's instructions or approval.

Useful evidence can include WhatsApp messages, text messages, emails and other written communications in which the employer asks the employee to remain at work or acknowledges the additional hours. Work schedules, attendance records, electronic clock-in and clock-out records, timesheets, duty rosters, assignments and other workplace records can also help establish the claim.

The evidence does not necessarily have to take the form of a formal overtime agreement. Electronic communications and employment records may become important when determining whether additional hours were actually worked and whether the employer knew about them.

Employees should therefore keep copies of relevant communications and records rather than relying solely on verbal assurances. This can be particularly important where an employer later disputes that overtime was requested or performed.

What Employees Can Do About Unpaid Overtime

An employee who believes overtime wages remain unpaid can raise a labour complaint with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MOHRE), where the employment relationship falls within its jurisdiction.

The complaint process allows the ministry to examine the dispute and seek an amicable settlement. MoHRE's current procedure provides that, where a settlement cannot be reached, the ministry may issue a final decision for individual labour claims not exceeding Dh50,000. Claims exceeding Dh50,000 that cannot be settled amicably are referred to the competent court.

The ministry's procedure also provides for the examination of the documents and information submitted by the parties. This makes documentary evidence particularly important in an overtime dispute.

An employee should therefore set out the period during which the overtime was performed, the normal working hours, the additional hours worked, the circumstances in which the employer required or permitted the additional work, and the amount claimed.

What The Law Means For Employers And Workers

The UAE's overtime provisions establish a framework under which employers can require additional working hours within defined limits while protecting workers' entitlement to compensation for qualifying overtime.

For employees, the absence of a separate written overtime agreement should not automatically be treated as the end of a claim. At the same time, a claim for overtime cannot rest solely on an assertion that extra hours were worked. Evidence connecting those hours to the employer's request, knowledge or approval can be central to the outcome.

Workers who regularly perform additional hours should maintain accurate records of their schedules and preserve written or electronic instructions from their employers. Employers, meanwhile, should maintain reliable attendance and working-hour records and ensure that overtime arrangements and payments comply with the Labour Law.

Where a dispute arises, the competent authority or court will examine the evidence and determine whether the claimed overtime was actually performed and whether the employee is legally entitled to compensation.

When an employee's employment ends, questions can arise over how long the worker and, where applicable, the worker's family can remain in accommodation provided by the employer. The issue can become more complicated where the employer has not yet paid amounts due under the employment contract.

Under UAE labour law, employer-provided accommodation is generally linked to the employment relationship. A worker therefore does not acquire an indefinite right to remain in such accommodation after the employment relationship has ended. The law provides a specific period within which the accommodation must be vacated, while also recognising that the worker may have separate claims against the employer for unpaid contractual or statutory entitlements.

30-Day Period For Employer-Provided Accommodation

Article 16(10) of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations sets out the obligations of workers in the UAE private sector. It provides that a worker must vacate accommodation provided by the employer within a period not exceeding 30 days from the date of the end of the worker's service.

The provision is intended to give a worker a reasonable period to make alternative housing arrangements following termination of employment. The 30-day period does not, however, create a permanent right to continue occupying the employer's accommodation.

The law also allows a worker to remain in the accommodation beyond the 30-day period where the employer agrees. In such circumstances, the worker is required to bear the cost of the stay, unless the parties have agreed otherwise in writing.

This means that the parties can reach a separate written arrangement allowing the employee to remain in the accommodation for a longer period. Without such an agreement or the employer's approval, the statutory 30-day period remains the applicable timeframe.

Contractual Dues Remain Payable

The obligation to vacate accommodation does not, by itself, extinguish an employer's obligation to pay amounts that are contractually or legally due to the employee.

Employment contracts can contain provisions dealing with expenses associated with the employee's relocation, transportation, shipment of belongings or other costs. Where an employer has expressly agreed to reimburse a particular expense, such as furniture delivery costs, that obligation may remain enforceable even after the employment relationship has ended.

The fact that the employee is required to leave employer-provided accommodation within the prescribed period should therefore be considered separately from any dispute concerning unpaid contractual entitlements.

An employer cannot simply disregard a payment obligation contained in an employment contract because the employee's service has ended. Likewise, an employee should not automatically assume that a dispute over a payment gives them an unlimited right to remain in employer-provided accommodation.

What If The Employer Refuses To Pay?

Where an employer fails to pay an amount expressly agreed under the employment contract, the employee may seek recovery through the applicable labour dispute process.

The employment contract is an important document in determining the rights and obligations of both parties. If the contract provides for reimbursement of furniture delivery costs or another specific expense, the employee can rely on the contractual provision when pursuing the unpaid amount.

The employee should retain the employment contract, any written agreement concerning the expense, invoices, receipts, payment records and correspondence with the employer. These documents can help establish both the existence and the amount of the claimed entitlement.

Where the dispute cannot be resolved directly with the employer, the employee may raise a labour complaint through the competent authorities. Depending on the circumstances and the nature of the dispute, the matter may proceed through the applicable labour dispute resolution and court process.

Accommodation And Financial Claims Are Separate

A dispute over money owed by an employer should not automatically be treated as an extension of the employee's right to occupy company accommodation.

The current labour law specifically requires the worker to vacate employer-provided accommodation within 30 days after the end of service. At the same time, the worker retains the right to pursue legitimate financial claims arising from the employment relationship.

Consequently, an employee who has not received an agreed reimbursement should generally pursue that payment as a separate contractual or labour claim rather than treating the unpaid amount as an automatic entitlement to remain in the accommodation indefinitely.

The position can be different where the employer voluntarily agrees to extend the employee's stay. In that case, the terms of the extension should preferably be recorded in writing, including the duration of the stay and who will bear the accommodation costs.

Written Agreement Can Extend Stay

The law expressly permits continued occupation after the 30-day period where the employer approves it. The worker may remain at the accommodation at their own cost, or according to an arrangement agreed in writing with the employer.

This makes a written agreement particularly important where the employee needs additional time to find alternative accommodation, move personal belongings or complete relocation arrangements.

Employees should therefore avoid relying solely on verbal assurances that they can remain in the property beyond the statutory period. A written agreement can establish the duration of the extended stay and the financial responsibilities of both parties.

The 30-day rule applies to accommodation provided by the employer as part of the employment relationship. It should not be confused with the rules governing an ordinary residential tenancy, where the legal relationship between landlord and tenant is governed by the applicable tenancy legislation.

Employees Should Protect Their Contractual Rights

Termination of employment does not remove an employee's entitlement to legitimate salary, end-of-service benefits or other payments due under the law or the employment contract.

At the same time, the termination of service brings an end to the employment-related basis for occupying employer-provided accommodation. The employee should therefore make arrangements to vacate within the statutory period unless a different arrangement has been agreed with the employer.

Where a disagreement exists over unpaid contractual expenses, the employee can pursue the financial claim through the appropriate labour dispute mechanism. The accommodation issue and the payment dispute should be treated as two related but legally distinct matters.

For employees facing termination, the practical approach is to check the employment contract, identify all outstanding entitlements, preserve supporting documents and communicate with the employer in writing. If an extension of accommodation is required, it should also be agreed in writing rather than assumed.

Under the current UAE labour framework, therefore, an employee generally has up to 30 days from the end of service to vacate employer-provided accommodation. A contractual dispute over furniture delivery costs or other unpaid benefits does not by itself create an indefinite right to remain in the accommodation, although the employee can separately pursue any amounts legally or contractually due.

Your end-of-service gratuity can make up a significant part of your final financial settlement when you leave a job in the UAE. However, employers cannot simply deduct whatever amount they choose from it.

UAE Labour Law allows employers to make deductions from end-of-service benefits only in specific circumstances, including certain outstanding loans, disciplinary penalties, court-ordered debts and damage caused by an employee. Here is when a gratuity deduction is legally permitted and what workers can do if they believe money has been wrongly withheld.

When Is An Employer Legally Allowed To Deduct From Gratuity?

The right to deduct from an employee’s end-of-service gratuity is governed by Article 51(7) of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 and Article 29 of Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022, which sets out the specific circumstances in which a deduction is permitted.

Under Article 29(1) of the Executive Regulations, an employer may deduct from a worker’s end-of-service pay amounts due under the law or a court judgment, subject to the specified categories.

Loans or overpayments – amounts owed by the worker that are necessary for the repayment of loans, or amounts paid to the worker in excess of his or her entitlements.

Pension and insurance contribution shortfalls – repayment of amounts deducted for calculating the worker’s contributions to pensions and insurance, pursuant to applicable UAE legislation.

Disciplinary penalties – amounts deducted because of violations committed by the worker, subject to the list of penalties applicable at the establishment and approved by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE).

Court-ordered debts – debts owed pursuant to the execution of a court judgment against the worker.

Damage caused by the worker – amounts required to repair damage caused by the worker and attributed to his or her mistake or violation of the employer’s instructions, resulting in damage, destruction or loss of tools, machines, products or substances owned by the employer.

Where the amount owed results from a worker’s violation or damage attributed to the worker’s mistake, the employer must complete the prescribed procedures within three months from the date the amount became due, unless otherwise agreed.

Outside these specified categories, an employer does not have a general legal basis to deduct amounts from gratuity. Costs such as recruitment fees, visa or medical expenses, uniforms, or unexplained settlement deductions do not fall within the categories listed under Article 29 and therefore cannot simply be taken from an employee’s end-of-service benefits.

Are There Limits On How Much Can Be Deducted?

The UAE Labour Law does not impose one blanket percentage cap on deductions from gratuity in the same way that it regulates certain wage deductions during active employment. Instead, a gratuity deduction must fall within one of the categories specified in Article 29 and be supported by appropriate documentation.

The supporting evidence may include a loan agreement, payroll record, approved disciplinary regulations, court order or documentation establishing the damage and its connection to the employee’s mistake or violation. A deduction is not automatically lawful merely because the amount is small; it must have a recognised legal basis and appropriate supporting evidence.

It is also worth noting, separately, that banks may claim or freeze gratuity to recover outstanding personal loans or credit card debt. However, such action arises from the employee’s contractual relationship with the bank and is separate from the employer’s authority to make deductions under the UAE Labour Law.

What Can An Employee Do If They Believe A Deduction Was Wrongly Made?

If an employee believes that an employer has unlawfully deducted an amount from gratuity, there are several steps that can be taken to establish the basis of the deduction and challenge it where appropriate.

1. Request A Written Breakdown

Ask the employer in writing to specify exactly which Article 29 category the deduction falls under and to provide the supporting document, such as a loan agreement, disciplinary record or court order.

A lawful deduction should be traceable to one of the categories recognised under the Executive Regulations and supported by relevant documentation.

2. Avoid Signing An Unqualified Settlement

If the final settlement or gratuity calculation contains a deduction that is disputed, an employee should consider avoiding the signing of a release or settlement document without first recording the objection in writing. Signing an unqualified settlement may make it more difficult to challenge the deduction later, depending on the circumstances.

3. File A Complaint With MoHRE

For private-sector employees covered by the federal Labour Law, individual labour disputes, including disputes concerning gratuity deductions, are generally submitted to the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE) for resolution.

MoHRE will initially seek to resolve the dispute amicably. Where the value of the claim does not exceed Dh50,000, the Ministry has authority to issue a decision on the dispute. Such a decision has the force of an executive instrument, subject to the procedures for challenging it before the competent Court of First Instance. Where the dispute cannot be resolved through the Ministry’s process, it may be referred to the competent court in accordance with Article 54.

4. Note The Time Limit

Under Article 54(9) of the UAE Labour Law, claims concerning rights arising under the Decree-Law cannot be considered after two years from the date the employment relationship ended. Employees should therefore avoid unnecessary delay when seeking to challenge a disputed gratuity deduction or pursue other employment-related entitlements.

5. Check Your Jurisdiction

Employees in free zones such as the DIFC or ADGM may fall under separate employment frameworks and should not automatically assume that the federal Labour Law or MoHRE complaint process applies to their employment relationship. The applicable rules and dispute-resolution procedure depend on the jurisdiction governing the employment contract.

Employees should therefore first establish which employment legislation applies before starting a claim, particularly where the employer operates in a financial free zone or another jurisdiction with its own employment regulations.

President Donald Trump has extended for another year a controversial requirement that employers pay $100,000 when seeking to bring certain H-1B workers into the United States, prolonging a policy whose legal foundation is being challenged in federal court.

The extension, announced on September 18, keeps the restriction in place until September 21, 2027, subject to limited national-interest exceptions. But the move does not settle the central legal question: whether the president and executive agencies have sufficient authority under immigration law to impose such a substantial payment without specific congressional legislation.

That question has become increasingly important as the administration pursues a broader restructuring of the H-1B programme. Alongside the $100,000 measure, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed a separate $103,265 fee for cap-subject H-1B petitions. The two measures are legally distinct, but together illustrate the administration's attempt to make H-1B recruitment substantially more expensive while steering the programme towards higher-paid and higher-skilled workers.

A Policy Caught Between Executive Action And Judicial Review

The original $100,000 requirement was introduced by presidential proclamation in September 2025. It restricted the entry of certain H-1B workers unless the relevant petition was accompanied or supplemented by the payment.

The administration argued that the measure was necessary to address what it described as abuse of the H-1B system, particularly the use of lower-paid foreign labour by some IT staffing and outsourcing companies. The White House has maintained that the programme should supplement rather than replace American workers and that higher costs would discourage lower-wage recruitment.

The legal challenge, however, goes beyond whether the policy is desirable or effective. It centres on whether the executive branch can use presidential immigration powers to impose what employers and challengers regard as an exceptionally large financial condition on access to a visa programme created by Congress.

A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in June 2026 that the government's implementation of the $100,000 payment requirement was unlawful and vacated the relevant agency guidance. The administration appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, leaving the broader dispute unresolved.

The extension therefore creates an unusual situation. The administration has formally continued the presidential restriction while the legal mechanism used to implement the payment remains under judicial scrutiny.

The Real Legal Issue Is Authority

The significance of the litigation lies partly in the size of the payment. Traditional H-1B government fees are measured in thousands of dollars, whereas the new requirement represents a $100,000 payment for qualifying cases.

That difference raises a fundamental question about the boundary between immigration regulation and congressional control over federal revenue.

The administration relies on sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, provisions giving the president authority to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals. The September 2026 proclamation again invokes those provisions as the legal basis for restricting entry unless the payment is made.

The challengers' position, by contrast, has focused on whether those provisions authorise the government to impose such a substantial financial burden as a condition of entry into an existing visa programme.

That distinction could matter well beyond H-1B visas. If the courts ultimately accept broad executive authority to impose major financial conditions through presidential immigration proclamations, the decision could influence how future administrations use executive powers in other immigration programmes.

If the courts reject that approach, the administration could face pressure to seek congressional legislation for a permanent fee of this magnitude.

Employers Face More Than One H-1B Cost Increase

The $100,000 requirement is no longer the administration's only attempt to increase the financial cost of H-1B hiring.

In August, DHS proposed an additional $103,265 fee for all H-1B petitions subject to the annual cap, including petitions eligible for the US advanced-degree exemption. The proposed fee would be separate from the $100,000 payment and would be based on a different statutory authority.

DHS says the proposed fee would recover part of the costs incurred by federal agencies in administering the immigration system. The department estimates that applying the fee to an expected 85,000 cap-subject petitions could generate about $8.8 billion annually.

Importantly, the $103,265 charge is only a proposal. It is not currently a fee that employers must pay.

That distinction is critical for employers planning recruitment. The legal status of the $100,000 payment, the proposed $103,265 fee and other H-1B reforms are different. Treating them as one measure risks obscuring the separate legal and regulatory processes involved.

The Administration Is Changing Selection As Well As Cost

The fee strategy is only one part of the administration's broader H-1B policy. For fiscal year 2027, DHS has introduced a weighted selection system intended to give greater weight to higher-paid and higher-skilled positions. The White House says the system is designed to move the programme away from lower-wage recruitment and towards workers it considers more highly skilled.

The administration points to changes in registration patterns as evidence that the strategy is working. According to the White House, the largest IT staffing and outsourcing firms reduced their combined H-1B registrations from 24,946 to 2,055, a 92% decline. It also reported an increase in registrations involving beneficiaries with US master's degrees and a larger share of selections corresponding to the two highest wage levels.

Those figures demonstrate a significant change in filing behaviour, but they do not by themselves establish the wider economic consequences of the policy.

A decline in registrations from particular employers can reflect several factors, including the financial cost of sponsorship, changes in corporate hiring strategies and expectations about future immigration rules. Similarly, a higher proportion of high-wage registrations demonstrates a change in the composition of the applicant pool but does not necessarily establish the policy's long-term effect on wages, productivity or employment.

India Faces Particular Exposure

The changes have particular significance for India because Indian-born workers constitute the largest group among approved H-1B beneficiaries, although the policies themselves are not India-specific.

The importance of Indian professionals to the programme means that changes in fees, selection and entry requirements can have consequences for technology companies, outsourcing businesses and professionals moving between India and the United States.

The administration's policies could encourage some companies to reconsider where particular functions are performed. Reuters has reported that major H-1B users have responded to the changing environment by expanding operations outside the US, including in India. That creates a potentially important economic trade-off.

A policy intended to discourage employers from replacing US workers with lower-paid foreign labour could simultaneously encourage companies to locate more work outside the United States. In such a scenario, the effect would not necessarily be a simple transfer of jobs from foreign workers to American workers; some functions could instead move offshore.

The eventual economic impact will therefore depend not only on how many H-1B petitions are filed but also on how companies redesign their workforce and investment decisions.

Legal Uncertainty Could Become A Business Cost

For employers, perhaps the most immediate consequence is uncertainty. Companies making multi-year hiring and investment decisions need to know whether the $100,000 payment will ultimately be enforceable, whether the proposed $103,265 fee will become final, and whether further changes will alter the economics of sponsorship.

The administration's extension provides policy continuity, but it does not provide legal certainty.

The court proceedings could ultimately determine whether the original payment survives. Meanwhile, DHS is pursuing a separate rulemaking that could create a substantial fee under a different legal authority.

That means employers may have to plan around several possible regulatory outcomes rather than one clearly defined cost.

The Broader Question For H-1B Policy

The dispute is therefore about more than a $100,000 payment. The H-1B programme was created by Congress to allow US employers to hire foreign workers for specialty occupations. The Trump administration is attempting to use executive authority, agency rulemaking and economic incentives to change how that programme operates without waiting for comprehensive congressional reform.

The administration argues that existing H-1B practices have allowed some employers to use the programme in ways that depress wages or displace American workers. Business groups and companies dependent on skilled international recruitment have argued that H-1B workers remain important to sectors facing shortages of specialised talent.

The courts are being asked to address the legal dimension of that policy dispute: how far executive immigration powers extend when their exercise imposes substantial financial consequences on employers and changes access to a programme established by statute.

That makes the litigation consequential even beyond the immediate fate of the $100,000 payment.

A Programme In The Midst Of Structural Change

The extension through September 2027 gives the administration another year to pursue its stated objective of reshaping H-1B recruitment. But the policy's future remains dependent on the courts and on the outcome of separate regulatory proceedings.

For employers, the emerging H-1B framework is becoming a combination of higher potential costs, wage-based selection and increased scrutiny of recruitment practices. For foreign professionals, particularly those seeking their first H-1B visa from outside the United States, the system is becoming more difficult to predict.

The administration has presented the changes as a way of restoring the programme's focus on highly skilled workers. The legal challenges, however, are testing a different proposition: whether the executive branch can achieve such a transformation through presidential and agency action, or whether some of the most consequential changes require Congress to act.

Until that question is resolved, the extension of the $100,000 requirement may provide another year of policy direction without providing the certainty that employers, workers and immigration lawyers need most.

The UAE’s Involuntary Loss of Employment (ILOE) insurance scheme provides temporary financial support to private sector and federal government employees who lose their jobs due to termination rather than resignation. The scheme is designed to provide short-term income protection while individuals look for new employment.

Here is how the system works, when payouts stop and what can affect eligibility.

When You Can Start Claiming ILOE Compensation

You can claim unemployment insurance only after completing at least 12 consecutive months of subscription to the scheme. This means you must remain enrolled and comply with the applicable premium payment requirements before becoming eligible for compensation.

When Unemployment Insurance Payouts Stop

The insurer’s obligation to provide compensation ends in specific circumstances. These include reaching the maximum compensation limit applicable during the insurance period and reaching the overall maximum of 12 months of compensation across all claims during the insured person’s employment in the UAE. Coverage also ends upon the death of the insured person, from the date of death.

Compensation also stops if the insured person secures a new job or leaves the UAE, even if the three-month compensation period has not been completed.

How Much Compensation You Can Receive

Compensation is calculated at 60 per cent of the insured person’s average basic salary during the six months preceding the loss of employment. The amount is subject to the applicable category and monthly limits.

Category A: Basic salary of Dh16,000 or less
Maximum monthly compensation: Dh10,000

Category B: Basic salary above Dh16,000
Maximum monthly compensation: Dh20,000

Payments are available for up to three months for each claim, or until you secure new employment or leave the UAE, whichever occurs first. The aggregate compensation cannot exceed 12 months over the insured person’s entire employment in the UAE.

Eligibility Requirements For ILOE

To qualify for compensation under the scheme, you must have been subscribed to the unemployment insurance scheme for at least 12 consecutive months before losing your job and must have paid the required insurance premiums according to the agreed payment schedule.

You must also demonstrate that you lost your job for a reason other than resignation and must not have been dismissed for disciplinary reasons. An existing absconding complaint, a fraudulent claim, employment with a fictitious establishment, or loss of employment resulting from non-peaceful labour strikes or stoppages can also affect eligibility. The insured person must have legal residence in the UAE.

When And How To File A Claim

You must submit your claim within 30 days of the termination of the employment relationship or, where applicable, within 30 days of the resolution of a labour complaint referred to the courts. Claims can be submitted through the official ILOE website, mobile application, call centre or other channels approved by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation.

A federal appeals court has ruled that the US government cannot remove people to so-called third countries not named in their removal orders without providing meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise fears of potential persecution or torture.

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Friday largely upheld a lower court ruling that restricted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from carrying out such removals without adequate notice. The ruling requires people facing removal to a third country to be informed of their destination and given a meaningful opportunity to raise relevant protection claims.

Various federal laws protect people from being removed to countries where they face persecution or could be subjected to torture. The appeals court said those protections would have little practical effect if people facing removal were not told where they were being sent or given a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns about the destination.

DHS issued guidance permitting such removals in 2025 as part of the Trump administration’s broader immigration enforcement programme. The government subsequently reached agreements with third countries to accept people being removed from the US who are not citizens of those countries.

Court Rejects Streamlined Process

“An individual’s right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination,” Judge Seth Aframe wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

The court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to establish what it described as an exception “from whole cloth” to existing laws requiring fair notice and procedures for people seeking protection from persecution or torture.

“The question in this case is not whether, if the government were starting from scratch, it could by statute or regulation lawfully adopt the streamlined process for third-party removals contemplated by the Guidance,” the court said. “The question is whether that process is consistent with the applicable statutes and regulations that presently govern fear-of-persecution claims.”

The appeals court therefore largely upheld the lower court’s conclusion that the DHS guidance was unlawful to the extent that it authorised third-country removals without effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise protection claims.

Part Of Lower Court Order Vacated

The First Circuit did, however, overturn part of the lower court’s order.

In its opinion, the appellate panel vacated the district court’s requirement that DHS first seek to remove members of the class to countries they had designated or to countries where they were nationals or citizens.

The panel found that the plaintiffs could not pursue their claim that DHS had unlawfully applied the relevant statutes out of order. That finding provided the basis for the lower court’s requirement concerning the order in which countries should be considered for removal.

The decision therefore limits the process DHS can use for third-country removals without eliminating the government's ability to carry out such removals altogether. The central requirement affirmed by the appeals court is that people must receive adequate notice of the intended destination and a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture.

Case Draws Immigration Debate

Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represented the plaintiffs, said the court had rejected the government’s effort to turn third-country removals into a process without adequate notice or an opportunity to raise concerns.

The panel comprised Aframe, Judge Lara Montecalvo and Senior Judge Jeffrey Howard. The class of plaintiffs is represented by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Human Rights First.

The case is D.V.D. v. US Department of Homeland Security, No. 26-1212, US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The opinion was issued on September 18, 2026.

Employees in the UAE who work on public holidays may be entitled to compensatory leave or additional pay under the country’s employment law. However, whether those compensatory days can be attached to annual leave to extend a holiday depends largely on the employer’s leave policy and its agreement with the employee.

Under the UAE’s Federal Decree Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Employment Relations, annual leave and compensatory leave arising from work on public holidays are treated as separate entitlements. The law does not contain a specific provision giving employees an automatic right to combine compensatory days with their annual leave.

For employees working for mainland private-sector companies in Dubai and other emirates, the timing of annual leave is generally determined by the employer according to operational requirements, although it may also be agreed upon between the employer and employee.

Annual Leave Dates

Article 29 of the Employment Law sets out the rules governing annual leave. An employer may determine the dates on which an employee takes annual leave, taking into account work requirements and, where applicable, agreement with the employee.

The employer must notify the employee of the scheduled annual leave dates at least one month before the leave is due to begin. This requirement allows employees to plan their time away from work while also enabling employers to manage staffing and operational needs.

The number of annual leave days available to an employee is determined according to the employee’s length of service and the applicable provisions of the Employment Law. Annual leave therefore remains a statutory entitlement, but its timing is subject to the applicable workplace arrangements.

Public Holiday Entitlement

Public holidays are governed separately under Article 28 of the Employment Law. Employees are entitled to full pay for official public holidays announced for the private sector by the competent authorities.

The UAE announces public holidays for the private sector through the relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE). Employees who are entitled to a public holiday should receive their normal remuneration for the day.

The position is different where an employee is required to work during an official public holiday.

In such circumstances, Article 28(2) provides for compensation in the form of another day off or payment for the normal working day together with an additional amount of at least 50 per cent of the employee’s basic wage.

This compensatory entitlement is intended to recognise work performed on a public holiday. It does not, however, expressly state that the resulting day off must or may automatically be added to annual leave.

Combining Different Types Of Leave

The Employment Law contains specific provisions dealing with different categories of leave, but it does not expressly establish a general right for employees to combine compensatory leave earned for working on public holidays with annual leave.

Consequently, an employee who has accumulated compensatory days cannot necessarily insist that those days be placed immediately before or after annual leave simply because both are forms of time away from work.

The arrangement may instead depend on the employer’s leave procedures, internal regulations and operational requirements.

An employee planning a longer break by attaching compensatory days to annual leave should therefore discuss the proposed dates with the employer or human resources department in advance. If the employer agrees, the different leave entitlements may be scheduled consecutively, subject to the company’s applicable rules.

Company Policies

Internal workplace regulations can play an important role in determining how leave is administered.

Article 13(3) of the Employment Law requires employers to establish internal work regulations covering matters including work instructions, sanctions, promotions, benefits and other internal rules, subject to the requirements of the law and its Executive Regulations.

Where an employer has adopted an employee handbook or HR policy dealing with annual leave, public holidays and compensatory leave, employees should check those provisions before making leave arrangements.

A company policy may establish procedures that allow different leave entitlements to be taken consecutively, provided those arrangements comply with the Employment Law.

The law also permits employers to introduce benefits and programmes that are more favourable to employees than the minimum statutory requirements. Article 65(4) provides that where an employer’s regulations or programmes offer more beneficial conditions to employees, those more favourable conditions may apply in the event of a conflict with the statutory provisions.

This means that an employer may provide employees with more favourable leave arrangements than the minimum rights established by law.

Employer Approval Matters

For an employee holding compensatory days earned from working on public holidays, the safest approach is to obtain confirmation from the employer before treating those days as an extension of annual leave.

For example, an employee who has five days of annual leave and two compensatory days cannot automatically assume that the seven days can be taken together merely because the compensatory days have already been earned. The employer may need to approve the combined period and ensure that it is consistent with internal leave procedures and operational requirements.

Where the company’s HR policy expressly permits compensatory leave to be combined with annual leave, an employee may rely on that provision, subject to the applicable procedures for requesting and approving leave.

Conversely, where the policy is silent, employees should not assume that the combination is an automatic statutory entitlement. An agreement with the employer may be required.

Leave Planning

Employees should also distinguish between a statutory entitlement to leave and the employer’s authority to organise when that leave is taken.

Compensatory leave earned for working on public holidays arises because the employee performed work when the employee would otherwise have been entitled to the public holiday. Annual leave, meanwhile, is a separate statutory entitlement intended to provide employees with paid rest.

Although both ultimately provide time away from work, the Employment Law does not expressly require an employer to allow the two types of leave to be combined.

Employees planning extended breaks should therefore submit their requests sufficiently early, identify the compensatory days separately from annual leave and obtain written confirmation from HR or the employer regarding the approved dates.

This approach can help avoid disputes over whether particular days were treated as annual leave, compensatory leave or another category of leave.

More Favourable Benefits

The absence of an express statutory provision requiring compensatory leave to be combined with annual leave does not prevent an employer from offering such an arrangement.

Where an employer’s internal regulations, employment contract or established benefits provide employees with more favourable leave conditions, those provisions may operate in the employee’s favour, provided they comply with the applicable UAE employment legislation.

Accordingly, an employee who wants to extend an annual holiday using compensatory days should first examine the company’s HR policy and then seek approval for the proposed dates.

The UAE Employment Law guarantees compensation for employees required to work on public holidays, including compensatory leave or the applicable additional payment. However, it does not expressly create an automatic right to attach those compensatory days to annual leave.

The practical position, therefore, is that combining the two can be possible where the employer’s policy allows it or the employer agrees to the arrangement. Employees should not treat the combination as an automatic statutory entitlement unless their employment terms or workplace rules provide for it.

Employees in the UAE may establish a business or become a partner or shareholder in another entity while continuing to work for their existing employer, but they must consider several legal restrictions before doing so. For employees of mainland companies in Dubai, the UAE employment framework, together with its implementing regulations, governs issues including employer consent, conflicts of interest and non-competition.

An employee who wishes to establish a new business or acquire an interest in an existing UAE entity should first establish whether an No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the current employer is required and obtain the necessary approval before proceeding. The employee must also review the employment contract for any provisions that could restrict competing activities.

Employer Approval Can Be Important

An employee may establish a new entity or become a partner or shareholder in an existing business, but an employer's NOC may be required for the employee to undertake such an activity while remaining employed.

The NOC can be particularly important where the proposed business has activities that overlap with those of the existing employer. An employer may have legitimate concerns if an employee intends to operate a separate business that could compete for the same customers, use confidential information or otherwise create a conflict with the employee's duties.

Employees should therefore not assume that owning a separate business automatically falls outside their employment obligations. The proposed activity, the terms of the employment contract and the employee's actual responsibilities should all be considered before the business is established.

Non-Compete Clauses Remain Relevant

The UAE's Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Employment Relations permits employers, in certain circumstances, to include a non-competition clause in an employment contract.

Article 10 provides that where an employee's work gives access to the employer's customers or business secrets, the employer may require the employee not to compete with the employer or participate in a competing project in the same sector after the employment relationship ends.

However, such a restriction is not unlimited. The clause must specify the geographical area, duration and type of work covered, and only to the extent necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests. The non-competition period cannot exceed two years from the expiry of the employment contract.

This means an employee planning to establish a business in the same sector should carefully examine the wording of the employment contract. Similarity between the proposed business and the employer's activities may create legal risks, particularly where the employee has access to customers, confidential information or business secrets.

Written Agreement Can Remove the Restriction

The implementing regulations provide an important possibility for employees and employers. Under Article 12 of Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022, the parties may agree in writing that the non-competition clause will not apply after the employment contract ends.

This provides a potential route for an employee and employer to resolve the issue before the employment relationship comes to an end. A written agreement can make the position clearer and reduce uncertainty over whether the employee will be able to enter a competing business after leaving the company.

The regulations also provide circumstances in which an employee may be exempted from a non-compete obligation. These include an arrangement under which the employee or the new employer pays the former employer compensation of up to three months of the employee's last contractual wage, subject to the former employer's written consent.

Other Exemptions May Apply

The regulations also provide for exemption from the non-competition restriction where the employment contract is terminated during the probationary period. Certain professional categories may also be exempted where they are identified as being in demand in the UAE labour market under the applicable ministerial decisions.

Employees should therefore consider the circumstances surrounding the termination of employment as well as the wording of the non-compete clause itself.

Importantly, where a dispute arises over the application of a non-competition clause and cannot be resolved amicably, the matter may be referred to the judiciary. Under the implementing regulations, the burden of proving the alleged damage rests with the employer.

Conflict of Interest is a Key Consideration

Even where an employee receives permission to establish a business, the employee must continue to comply with contractual duties owed to the existing employer. Running a separate company should not result in the misuse of confidential information, customer lists, trade secrets or other proprietary material belonging to the employer.

The employee should also ensure that the new business does not interfere with existing employment responsibilities. An NOC should therefore not be treated as a blanket waiver of every contractual obligation. Its terms, together with the employment contract and applicable law, remain important.

For employees considering a business venture while remaining in full-time employment, the safest approach is to examine the proposed business activity, obtain any required employer approval in writing and review the employment contract for non-compete and confidentiality provisions before taking steps to establish the new entity.

The UAE legal framework therefore allows employees to pursue business ownership while maintaining employment, but that freedom is subject to contractual obligations and safeguards designed to protect legitimate employer interests.