Search results for: OMB

On Sept. 18, 2026, the White House announced two significant actions affecting the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program. The first, an executive order titled “Enhancing Program Integrity and Interagency Coordination in the Administration of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Program,” directs federal agencies to increase coordination and scrutiny of H-1B petitions, labor condition applications, visas, and entries. The second, a presidential proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” extends for another 12 months the restriction on the entry of certain H-1B workers unless the petition is accompanied or supplemented by a $100,000 payment, subject to limited exceptions.

Together, these measures create additional considerations for employers sponsoring H-1B workers, particularly employers with recent or anticipated workforce reductions, employers using staffing or outsourcing models, and employers seeking to bring H-1B workers to the United States from abroad.

1. Enhanced Interagency Scrutiny of H-1B Cases

The Sept. 18 executive order directs the Departments of State, Labor, and Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate with the Departments of Commerce and Education and the Small Business Administration when processing H-1B labor condition applications, petitions, visas, and entries.

Under the order, the additional agencies may provide information concerning wages, employment, academic qualifications, industry conditions, and other economic factors relevant to H-1B adjudications.

Of particular importance to employers, agencies are directed to consider whether an H-1B sponsor has directly or indirectly engaged in layoffs during the preceding year or plans future layoffs that negatively affect similarly situated U.S. workers. The order also directs the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division to begin, within 30 days, reviewing data associated with previously submitted labor condition applications to determine whether additional action may be warranted.

This represents an important compliance consideration for employers that have recently undertaken reductions in force or are contemplating workforce reductions while maintaining or initiating H-1B sponsorship.

2. The $100,000 Payment Requirement Continues

The accompanying presidential proclamation extends the restrictions established under the September 2025 proclamation for an additional 12 months, through Sept. 21, 2027, unless further extended or otherwise modified.

The proclamation restricts certain H-1B specialty-occupation workers from entering the United States unless the relevant petition includes a $100,000 payment, subject to specified exceptions. The restriction applies to H-1B workers who are outside the United States and who must seek admission to effectuate the relevant petition’s approval. The proclamation specifically addresses admission through consular processing, notification at a port of entry, pre-flight inspection, and pre-clearance.

The proclamation took effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT on Sept. 21, 2026, and is scheduled to expire 12 months later unless extended.

The $100,000 payment requirement remains subject to ongoing litigation. On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the agency guidance implementing the payment requirement in State of California v. Mullin, No. 1:25-cv-13829. The First Circuit subsequently denied the government’s request for a stay on July 24, 2026.

As a result of the court order, collecting the $100,000 payment is currently paused under the prior proclamation. USCIS has indicated that it will comply with the court’s order while it considers next steps and has stated that it intends to collect the payment if the court order is lifted. Given the new proclamation extending the restrictions, we are awaiting further guidance from USCIS regarding whether and when collection of the $100,000 payment will resume.

Accordingly, while the new proclamation extends the underlying entry restrictions through Sept. 21, 2027, the practical application and collection of the $100,000 payment remain subject to the ongoing litigation and further agency guidance.

3. Important Distinction: Petition Approval vs. Entry

Employers and foreign nationals should distinguish between the H-1B petition process and the separate question of admission to the United States.

The September 2026 proclamation provides that DHS shall restrict decisions on petitions not accompanied by the $100,000 payment for H-1B workers who are currently outside the United States. It also directs the Departments of State and Homeland Security to take appropriate action to deny entry when the required payment has not been made.

Accordingly, employers may wish to evaluate not only whether an H-1B petition can be filed or approved, but also whether the beneficiary would need to obtain admission to the United States to begin or continue the contemplated employment.

4. Limited National-Interest Exception

The proclamation contains an exception that permits the secretary of homeland security, at the secretary’s discretion, to determine that the restriction should not apply to an individual, all H-1B workers employed by a particular company, or all H-1B workers in an industry.

The exception is available where DHS determines that hiring the H-1B workers is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.

Because the proclamation leaves this determination to DHS’s discretion, employers might not assume that the exception would apply to a particular case without further guidance or a specific determination.

5. Increased Risk for Employers with Layoffs

The executive order’s treatment of layoffs is particularly significant.

Federal agencies are now directed to consider whether an H-1B-sponsoring employer has undertaken layoffs within the preceding year or plans future layoffs affecting similarly situated U.S. workers.

Employers that have conducted reductions in force may wish to review their H-1B sponsorship practices alongside their workforce actions. Relevant considerations may include:

  • The timing and scope of recent layoffs;
  • Whether affected U.S. workers performed duties similar to those described in H-1B petitions;
  • Whether H-1B sponsorship continued following a reduction in the relevant workforce;
  • The wage levels and job duties associated with sponsored positions;
  • The employer’s labor condition application history; and
  • Whether anticipated workforce changes might affect current or planned H-1B sponsorship.

The executive order does not establish a categorical prohibition on H-1B sponsorship by an employer that has conducted layoffs. Rather, it directs the relevant agencies to take such layoffs into account when considering H-1B-related applications, petitions, visas, and entries.

6. Employers Using Staffing and Outsourcing Models Should Take Note

The White House specifically identifies staffing and outsourcing arrangements as an area of concern in both Sept. 18 actions.

The proclamation states that the administration’s earlier restrictions had resulted in a substantial reduction in H-1B registrations by large IT staffing and outsourcing firms. It reports that the combined registrations of the largest such firms declined from 24,946 to 2,055 between the cited fiscal-year periods.

The executive order likewise directs agencies to scrutinize compliance with statutory requirements and permits the use of additional employment, wage, academic, industrial, and economic information when evaluating H-1B cases.

Employers relying on third-party placement arrangements, consulting structures, or other staffing models may wish to confirm that petition documentation accurately reflects the underlying employment relationship, worksite, duties, wage information, and qualifications of the H-1B worker.

7. Employer Considerations

In light of these developments, employers should consider the following steps:

  • Review current H-1B sponsorship. Identify H-1B workers who are outside the United States and determine whether upcoming travel or initial admission may implicate the $100,000 payment requirement.
  • Assess recent layoffs. Review reductions in force during the preceding 12 months and determine whether affected positions overlap with positions currently or recently sponsored through the H-1B program.
  • Audit labor condition application and petition records. Confirm that job duties, worksites, wages, educational qualifications, and employment arrangements remain accurate and consistent across immigration filings and underlying company records.
  • Coordinate immigration and employment counsel. Workforce reductions, reorganizations, outsourcing arrangements, and H-1B sponsorship should be evaluated together rather than as separate processes.
  • Monitor agency guidance. The Sept. 18 executive order expressly delegates authority to the Departments of State, Commerce, Labor, and Homeland Security to issue or adopt rules, policies, operational guidance, or other guidance necessary to implement the order.

8. Takeaways

The September 2026 actions signal continued federal attention to H-1B program compliance, wage protections, workforce impacts, and the use of H-1B workers in staffing and outsourcing arrangements.

For employers, the practical effect might extend beyond the $100,000 payment requirement. H-1B sponsorship decisions may increasingly need to be considered alongside an employer’s workforce history, compensation practices, organizational structure, and use of third-party staffing arrangements.

Because implementation details may develop through agency guidance and future rulemaking, employers should monitor developments closely and consider evaluating H-1B cases based on the specific facts of each employee and sponsoring organization.

On Sept. 14, 2026, one day before the Department of Homeland Security’s fixed-term admission rule was scheduled to take effect, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts postponed the rule’s effective date nationwide. Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS. For now, duration of status remains the governing admission framework for F, J, and I nonimmigrants.

The ruling affects international students, exchange visitors, and foreign-media representatives, and employers planning for employees’ lawful status, workforce management, and compliance obligations.

The Intended Rule

DHS’s July 17, 2026, final rule, Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media, would have replaced duration of status with fixed periods of admission for F, J, and I nonimmigrants.

For F and J nonimmigrants, the rule would have limited admission to the earlier of a fixed four-year period or the academic program end date, without regard to whether the program ordinarily would take longer. For I nonimmigrants, it would have imposed a 240-day limit or admission through completion of the assignment, whichever came first. The rule therefore would have moved many individuals who presently maintain status through continued compliance with their program requirements into a system requiring affirmative, discretionary extension-of-stay adjudications.

The rule would have required F and J nonimmigrants seeking additional time, including many doctoral students, to file a Form I-539 extension of stay application. DHS would have retained discretion over those requests, and a denial would not have been subject to administrative appeal within DHS. The rule also would have shortened the departure grace period from 60 days to 30 days, restricted F students from pursuing a second degree at the same or lower educational level, and curtailed graduate student changes of educational objective or transfers except in specified extenuating circumstances. These restrictions would have affected joint, combined, and dual-degree programs.

DHS estimated compliance costs of approximately $443.1 million to $448.6 million, principally related to rule familiarization and extension-of-stay processing. The rule emerged after a 32-day comment period that produced nearly 22,000 comments. It was finalized largely as proposed, with an effective date of Sept. 15, 2026.

The Rule Postponement and Legal Framework

Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the District of Massachusetts granted interim relief under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), postponing the final rule’s effective date pending final resolution on the merits. The court applied the preliminary-relief factors and concluded that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their APA claim, irreparable harm absent relief, and that the equities and public interest favored relief.

The court emphasized the limits of its role. It did not conclude that the rule could be blocked merely because it was misguided or ill-advised, because of concerns regarding the government’s candor, or because the rule might cause long-term damage to U.S. educational institutions. Rather, the issue was whether DHS had complied with the APA’s requirements for reasoned decision-making. On that issue, the court found that the rulemaking was likely arbitrary and capricious in at least four independent respects.

First, the court said DHS did not seriously account for the rule’s likely costs. Commenters presented evidence that nearly half of current international students might not have enrolled under a fixed-term system, and that even a modest drop in enrollment could cost the United States tens of billions of dollars each year. DHS dismissed that evidence without offering its own data or analysis. However, the court held that an agency cannot ignore a major cost simply because it has not calculated the exact dollar amount.

Second, the court found that DHS did not meaningfully address less disruptive options. Commenters suggested improving the Students and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), the government’s tracking system, to add compliance checkpoints, matching any fixed admission period to the actual length of a program, or focusing extra screening on particular high-risk fields or countries. The court found DHS’s responses to those ideas thin and unpersuasive. It also noted that SEVIS had helped uncover many of the incidents DHS used to criticize the duration-of-status system.

Third, the court concluded that DHS did not adequately respond to important public comments. Among other issues, DHS did not sufficiently explain its assumptions about enrollment losses, doctoral completion times, student transfers and second degrees, reliance on the current rules, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) processing backlogs, and press freedom concerns. For example, DHS pointed to a source suggesting that doctorates take four years, while commenters presented evidence that doctoral study often takes considerably longer. The court said an agency cannot simply state a belief when the evidence in the record points in the other direction.

Fourth, the court found that DHS did not adequately explain how fixed admission periods would advance its stated fraud and national-security goals. The examples DHS cited involved conduct that could occur well within four years or even during a short B-1 visit. DHS also did not explain why F-1 students who remain in status for more than 10 years are necessarily suspect when their time in the United States may reflect doctoral study followed by authorized practical training. For the 240-day cap on I nonimmigrants, the court found no supporting fraud or national-security evidence at all.

The court found that injury was already occurring. It cited student withdrawals at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, a 42% decline in international applications at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, disruption to joint and combined degree programs, cancelled research and conference travel, and projected administrative upheaval. DHS itself had estimated that designated school officials and responsible officers would spend about 135 hours on first-year familiarization and adaptation, at a cost of up to $267.9 million.

The court also addressed the scope of the order. The government invoked Trump v. CASA to argue for party-limited relief. Judge Saylor distinguished traditional equitable authority from APA remedies, noting that CASA expressly reserved the question whether the APA authorizes vacatur under Section 706. The court further relied on Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence and the First Circuit’s decision in Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. USDA, 2026 WL 2279789, decided Aug. 7, 2026, to reject a categorical party-specific limitation on Section 705 postponement. Nationwide relief was appropriate, the court explained, because the plaintiffs represent approximately 600 institutions while more than 5,000 institutions operate nationwide, and party-limited relief would create parallel regulatory regimes and difficult coverage determinations for students who transfer or pursue joint degrees.

The court selected postponement under APA Section 705, rather than vacatur under Section 706, and denied the requests for vacatur and summary judgment without prejudice to renewal. The case therefore continues, and the merits remain to be finally resolved.

Implications for Business Immigration Practice

For now, F, J, and I nonimmigrants remain subject to the current duration-of-status framework, and DHS’s July 17, 2026, final rule is not in effect. The 60-day departure grace period remains in place, the Final Rule’s new I-539 extension requirement does not apply, and schools and program sponsors need not implement the Final Rule’s transition provisions. Because the postponement is nationwide, this conclusion is not limited to the institutions represented by the plaintiffs.

For employers that rely on international talent, the decision leaves the existing compliance framework in place rather than requiring an immediate conversion to fixed-term admission and extension-of-stay planning. The final rule’s four-year cap and related restrictions are not currently in effect.

However, this is interim relief rather than a final resolution. The government may seek review in the First Circuit, and DHS could pursue further proceedings or a new rulemaking designed to address the deficiencies identified by the court. The scope of APA Section 705 relief after CASA also remains an evolving issue. Employers with employees participating in multi-year academic programs, research appointments, or assignments may wish to treat the current framework as controlling for now, while recognizing that further litigation, appeals, or rulemaking could alter the regulatory landscape.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched the National Fraud Detection Center (NFDC), a prosecutor-led, multi-agency initiative designed to identify and investigate actors suspecting of defrauding various federal government programs. Though the formal announcement does not single out business immigration as an isolated enforcement target, the NFDC’s cross-agency architecture may have important implications for employers and participants in the employment-based immigration system.

A New Approach to Investigating Suspected Federal Fraud

In creating the NFDC, DOJ sought to address fragmented oversight, which it identified as a longstanding structural vulnerability across federal programs. Traditionally, fraud investigations have been divided among isolated agencies operating with separate databases, jurisdictions, and investigative protocols. These institutional barriers made it difficult to flag individuals and organizations across various programs and federal domains.

The NFDC bridges these gaps by unifying prosecutors, investigators, inspectors general, financial specialists, and data analysts into a coordinated operational structure. Its core objectives include combining analytical capabilities and directing investigative resources toward a whole-of-government approach to fraud elimination.

Key federal and state partners in the initiative include:

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
  • Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI)
  • Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
  • Department of the Treasury
  • Agency Offices of Inspector General (including the departments of Homeland Security and Labor)
  • State-level enforcement and regulatory agencies

The NFDC leverages shared technology and cross-agency data analytics to flag misconduct rapidly. Its enforcement priorities are intended to target schemes spanning multiple government programs, as well as suspected bad actors operating internationally.

Potential Impacts on Business Immigration

Importantly, the creation of the NFDC does not alter the underlying statutory or regulatory requirements for employment-based immigration filings. Instead, its impact may be operational; participating agencies now possess enhanced capabilities to cross-reference data and detect inconsistencies across distinct government repositories.

Business immigration filings inherently aggregate a vast amount of corporate and personal data, including details regarding:

  • Employer ownership, corporate structure, and financial health
  • Workforce size, job duties, wage rates, and physical worksites
  • Employee payroll records, tax filings, and historical immigration submissions
  • Operational details, including marketing analytics, short and long-term business plans, and financial pro forma

As a result, material inconsistencies between immigration filings and records held by other agencies — such as the IRS or Department of Labor — may receive heightened scrutiny. Areas of vulnerability may include identified inconsistencies in job descriptions, requirements, and compensation; discrepancies in academic or professional credentials, payroll reporting, or worksites; undisclosed third-party placements; and inaccurate corporate relationships. Furthermore, a perceived discrepancy in an immigration petition may trigger secondary reviews spanning labor, tax, financial, or criminal enforcement lines.

While not every data mismatch signals intentional fraud — corporate structures evolve, inter-agency terminology varies, and administrative errors happen — submitting inaccurate information may carry serious risks, including Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), unannounced site visits, federal audits, petition denials, revocations, or formal referrals for criminal investigation.

Preparing for Coordinated Enforcement

Employers should consider treating immigration compliance as a key component of their broader corporate compliance framework, rather than an isolated human resources task. Accordingly, employers may wish to confirm that immigration-related documents and records undergo careful review to support accuracy and consistency across public filings.

To help mitigate exposure in a unified enforcement environment, organizations may wish to take the following actions:   

  • Cross-File Reconciliation: Systematically compare new immigration filings against historical submissions made to the U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Labor, and the IRS to verify uniform data points.
  • Change Management Audits: Actively review material changes in employee job responsibilities, compensation packages, physical worksites, or internal reporting hierarchies, amending petitions where required.
  • Documentation Hygiene: Maintain robust, accessible records backing up the assertions, wage figures, and structural details included in petitions.
  • Site Visit Readiness: Train human resources personnel, reception staff, and management on appropriate protocols for responding to unannounced government site visits and agency inquiries.

The establishment of the NFDC underscores an important compliance maxim: data submitted to a federal agency may now be evaluated against an organization’s complete, government-wide footprint. Precise filings, documented internal controls, and timely remediation may help an organization manage risk in an era of coordinated government oversight.

On Aug. 21, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision in Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), et al. v. Rubio, striking down a Department of State policy that suspended immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries based on generalized public charge concerns and vacated the policy.

Background

In January 2026, the Department of State announced a policy directing U.S. consular officers to refuse immigrant visas to nationals of 75 designated countries. The policy was based on concerns that individuals from those countries were more likely to rely on public benefits in the United States. As a result, applicants could be denied immigrant visas regardless of their personal circumstances or whether they were otherwise eligible for visa issuance.

Countries Affected by the Immigrant Visa Ban

The ban applied to nationals of the following 75 countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of the Congo (Congo-Kinshasa), Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. 

The policy was based on an individual’s nationality rather than their country of residence. As a result, a citizen of one of the listed countries might be subject to the ban even if they reside permanently in another country or apply for a visa from a third country.

The Court’s Decision and Its Impact on Applicants

The court found that the policy was inconsistent with U.S. immigration law because it exceeded the secretary of state’s statutory and regulatory authority, and imposed a blanket nationality-based restriction rather than requiring the individualized review of each applicant’s eligibility. The court held that visa applicants must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that the Department of State exceeded its authority by categorically denying visas based solely on nationality. Accordingly, the court vacated the policy and directed the Department of State to restore individualized processing of visa applications.

This decision reaffirms that immigrant visa applications must be evaluated based on each applicant’s individual circumstances rather than broad assumptions tied to nationality. However, the ruling does not eliminate public charge screening or other visa eligibility requirements, and applicants must still satisfy all applicable requirements for immigrant visa issuance.

The government may appeal the decision.

Key Takeaways and Practical Considerations for Immigrants and Petitioners

  1. Applicants whose immigrant visa cases were affected by this policy might consider consulting with immigration counsel to determine whether the court’s decision may impact their cases or provide a basis for further action.
  2. Applicants may wish to continue preparing for consular processing, confirming that all required civil documents, police certificates, and financial records are up to date, complete, and readily available for review.
  3. The court’s decision does not eliminate public charge screening. Rather, it requires that applicants be assessed on an individual basis under existing immigration laws. Applicants should continue maintaining evidence of their financial stability, income, assets, and other means of support.
  4. The ruling does not guarantee visa issuance. Applicants must continue to meet all requirements for their immigrant visa category and successfully complete the consular process. The decision reinforces that visa eligibility must be determined on a case-by-case basis, not through broad nationality-based restrictions.
  5. Stay informed about further developments as the government may appeal the decision, and future litigation might affect visa processing procedures.

U.S. immigration agencies have issued a series of rules, proclamations, and guidance over the past year that impact visa processing and travel for foreign nationals. One such measure began as an experiment and has now become an important piece of U.S. visa processing. On Aug. 3, 2026, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) published a final rule, “Visas: Visa Bond Program,” making the visa bond framework DOS began piloting in August 2025 permanent. The final rule took effect the same day it was published.

For companies that send personnel to the United States for meetings, conferences, training, and short-term projects — and for the individuals who make those trips — the shift from pilot to permanent program is more than a bureaucratic footnote. Refundable cash bonds of up to $20,000 are now an enduring feature of the B-1/B-2 landscape for travelers from designated countries, which raises planning considerations that employers should consider building into their global mobility strategies.

From Pilot to Permanent Program

DOS’ authority for the program is not new. Section 221(g)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has long authorized consular officers to require a visitor visa applicant who is otherwise eligible for a visa to post a bond to help confirm that the traveler maintains status and departs the United States as required. For decades, as a matter of policy, consular officers were not instructed to exercise that authority. The 2025 temporary final rule launched a 12-month pilot to test whether a bond requirement could be administered at scale and whether it would meaningfully affect compliance.

DOS concluded that it could and did. According to the final rule, the pilot generated data suggesting that visa bonds are an effective tool for encouraging compliance, and DOS has determined that a permanent program is operationally feasible. The rule amends 22 CFR Part 41 to institutionalize the program and situates it within the broader enforcement priorities articulated in Executive Order 14159, which directs the Treasury Department, working with DOS and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to establish a system for administering bonds required under the INA. In short, what was a one-year test has become a standing rule.

Who May Be Required to Post a Bond

The program reaches a defined population. It applies to applicants for B-1 (business visitor) and B-2 (tourist) visas who are nationals of countries DOS has designated based on a combination of factors: high visa overstay rates, deficient information sharing, insufficient identity verification and criminal-records infrastructure, and shortcomings in screening, vetting, and the security of travel and civil documents. Countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program are not included, and designation is not automatic even when a country meets the stated criteria — DOS has reserved flexibility over which countries it lists.

Notably, although the underlying statute would also permit bonds for certain student (F) visa applicants, DOS has limited the permanent program to B-1/B-2 applicants. Its stated rationale is that the authorized period of stay for visitors is fixed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the port of entry and is comparatively short, which makes the bond mechanism easier to administer and monitor. Still, employers may wish to treat that limitation as a current design choice rather than a permanent boundary, particularly given that DOS has the authority to adjust the program’s contours over time.

The list of covered countries lives on DOS’ site, rather than in the regulation itself. DOS will announce covered countries at least 15 days before the program takes effect in a given country, and it may revise the list on a rolling basis — additions carry a 15-day lead time, while removals take effect immediately. Nationals who were already subject to a bond requirement under the pilot continue to be subject to it under the permanent program as of the effective date, so there is no gap or reset for travelers already included on the pilot list.

How Much, and How the Amount Is Set

Under the permanent program, a covered applicant may be required to post a bond of up to $20,000, with the consular officer selecting from three fixed levels — $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000 — based on the applicant’s individual circumstances. These amounts are higher than they were during the pilot.

The rule gives consular officers a default and a framework rather than open-ended discretion. Officers are expected to set the bond at $15,000 in ordinary cases. The amount drops to $10,000 where the officer believes the applicant could not afford $15,000 yet would remain able to fund the intended trip, and it rises to $20,000 where the applicant’s circumstances — including the nature and extent of the applicant’s ties to the United States — suggest that $15,000 would not be sufficient to ensure a timely departure. DOS also built in an inflation mechanism: beginning Oct. 1, 2027, and every seven years thereafter, the $20,000 ceiling will adjust automatically based on the Consumer Price Index, rounded up to the nearest $1,000.

Payment, Travel Limits, and Refunds

Bonds are administered through a Treasury-operated payment platform, with funds held at a U.S. financial institution acting as the government’s agent. Payment must be made electronically and in U.S. dollars for the full amount. The applicant bears any exchange costs, card-processing fees, or cross-border transfer limitations — practical frictions that may matter when a five-figure sum must clear from abroad on a compressed timeline. No interest accrues on a posted bond.

A visa issued to a bonded traveler carries an annotation reflecting the bond and comes with meaningful limits. Depending on visa reciprocity, the visa may be valid for three months single entry, three months multiple entry, or up to 12 months multiple entry. Notably, a bonded traveler may only enter and depart the United States through commercial airports of entry, including CBP Preclearance locations — land and sea ports are off limits. Travel to a contiguous territory after admission is possible under the automatic revalidation rules, but the traveler’s ultimate departure abroad must occur through a commercial U.S. airport so the system can confirm the departure.

The bond is fully refundable when the traveler complies. In general terms, the bond is cancelled and the principal returned when the traveler departs on time through a commercial airport and otherwise satisfies the conditions of the visa, or when the visa expires without the traveler having arrived in the United States. Refunds go back to the original form of payment, without interest, and may be subject to offset through the Treasury Offset Program for unrelated debts.

Breach and Forfeiture

Travelers may find themselves surprised at the provisions governing forfeiture. A bonded traveler forfeits the entire bond amount upon a substantial violation of its terms. Beyond the obvious trigger — remaining in the United States past the authorized period of stay — the rule identifies several others that may warrant close attention. Filing an untimely request to extend or change status is a violation, as is failing to depart within 10 days after a timely extension or change-of-status request is denied. Additionally, filing for asylum or another form of humanitarian protection on Form I-589 is expressly treated as a breach that forfeits the bond.

Equally important is a subtler point about extension and change-of-status filings. While filing a timely extension or change-of-status request is not itself a breach, the rule states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may treat the existence of a visa bond as a negative discretionary factor when it adjudicates that request. In practice, a bonded B-1/B-2 traveler who hopes to change status after arriving in the United States may face both a financial cliff if a filing is untimely and a discretionary headwind even when it is timely.

The mechanics of enforcement run through DHS. An automated review may flag a preliminary finding of noncompliance, but DHS will make the final breach determination under 8 CFR 103.6(c)(3) and notify the obligor in writing. Appeal rights are governed by 8 CFR 103.3 and the associated bond forms.

Waivers

The final rule does not create a formal waiver application, and travelers may be unable to count on one. Because DOS assumes every applicant would prefer not to post a bond, there is no process to request a waiver on an individual basis. Consular officers may recommend a waiver only in narrow circumstances — such as travel by U.S. government employees or urgent humanitarian needs — and the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs (or a designee) retains discretion to waive the requirement for an individual, a category of applicants, or an entire country where doing so would not be contrary to the national interest.

Practical Considerations for Employers and Travelers

For global employers, the permanent program reframes routine visitor travel from designated countries as a matter that requires advance planning and budgeting. Companies that rely on B-1 business visitors from affected countries may wish to confirm each traveler’s nationality against the current DOS list prior to scheduling a consular appointment. Impacted employers should also consider setting aside a five-figure cash outlay per traveler and accounting for the time it takes to fund and clear an electronic payment from abroad. Where short-term visitor travel is business-critical, employers may wish to evaluate whether an alternative visa classification is a better fit than a bonded B-1 for the individual and the assignment.

Travelers themselves should understand the compliance stakes before they board a flight. The refund depends on strict adherence to the visa’s terms, departure through a commercial airport, and — above all — timely departure or a properly filed, timely extension. The provisions treating an untimely filing, a post-denial overstay, or an asylum application as forfeiture events mean that decisions made after arrival might cost the full bond.

The Bigger Picture

The Visa Bond Program is part of a broader enforcement posture taking shape across DOS, DHS, CBP, and USCIS through rulemaking, proclamations, policy memoranda, and adjudication practice. The country list may change; the bond ceiling will rise with inflation; and DOS has left itself room to adjust the program’s scope. Employers and foreign nationals should therefore consider treating global mobility planning as dynamic. Accordingly, they may wish to revisit relevant travel strategies as designations shift and should consider building the possibility of a bond requirement into timelines and budgets, rather than confronting it at the consular window.

As discussed elsewhere on this blog, DHS has finalized a new rule governing F-1 status, scheduled to take effect on Sept. 15, 2026. The rule’s core change is to eliminate Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1 students, J exchange visitors, and I foreign media representatives, replacing it with fixed admission periods and requiring extensions of stay where additional time is needed.

Key Changes to F-1 Status and Day One CPT Under the New Rule

That change matters to Day One Curricular Practical Training (CPT) because it operates within the broader F-1 status framework. Even where the Day One CPT rules themselves remain intact, the shift from open-ended status to fixed admission periods might change how employers assess Day One CPT as an option for employees whose Optional Practical Training (OPT) or STEM OPT is expiring, whose H-1B registration is not selected, or whose H-1B strategy needs more time. To be clear, the new F-1 rule does not eliminate Day One CPT and does not make substantive changes to CPT eligibility or the DSO’s role in authorizing CPT. But it does change the planning environment around Day One CPT in ways that may matter for hiring, retention, I-9 reverification, and immigration contingency planning.

The principal change is to the surrounding compliance framework. Because the rule replaces open-ended duration of status for F-1 students with fixed admission periods, if a student needs more time to complete a program, begin a new higher-level program, or continue authorized practical training beyond the current fixed period, the student may need to file an extension of stay with USCIS. Depending on the employee’s I-94 expiration date, travel history, transition-rule posture, and new Form I-20 program dates, moving from F-1 OPT or STEM OPT into a new CPT-eligible program may require a Form I-539 extension-of-stay filing.

Work Authorization, I-94 Expiration, and Extension of Stay: Employer Compliance Considerations

Employers relying on Day One CPT may therefore need to track more than the CPT dates on Form I-20. Under the fixed-period framework, the employee’s Form I-94 expiration date, the I-20 program end date, the 30-day grace period, the DSO-authorized CPT end date, and any timely filed Form I-539 receipt might all matter. This may lead to a major shift for workforce planning. Under the prior D/S model, employers often focused solely on the I-20 CPT authorization dates. Under the new fixed-period framework, while the I-20 is still essential, it is no longer the only timing document that matters. A CPT endorsement that runs beyond the employee’s I-94 expiration date may not be enough by itself. If an extension of stay is required, the employee must file it on time, and the employer must understand what documentation supports continued work authorization.

The new rule also restricts some enrollment strategies historically used for Day One CPT planning. F-1 students below the graduate level generally cannot transfer schools or change educational objectives during the first academic year unless the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) authorizes an exception. Graduate-level students generally cannot change educational objectives during the program and cannot transfer during the program unless SEVP authorizes an exception for extenuating circumstances. The rule also limits use of F-1 status for another program at the same or lower educational level after a student completes a program following the rule’s effective date. This is particularly important because some employees have pursued a second master’s program to obtain Day One CPT after OPT or STEM OPT, or after H-1B lottery non-selection.

Transition Periods, Transfers, and Second-Degree Restrictions for F-1 Students

Employers should also be aware of the transition period to the new rules. F and J nonimmigrants who were admitted for D/S and are properly maintaining status on Sept. 15, 2026, generally may remain in the United States without filing an extension of stay until the program end date or EAD expiration date valid on the effective date, subject to an outside transition limit. For F nonimmigrants, the rule identifies Nov. 14, 2030, as the outside date for this transition period. Certain F-1 students admitted for D/S who timely file post-completion OPT or STEM OPT employment authorization applications on or before March 18, 2027, are not required to file Form I-539 for that requested OPT or STEM OPT period, although travel and readmission under a fixed admission period may change the analysis. Employers might not assume that every current F-1 employee would immediately need a Form I-539 on Sept. 15, 2026, but may wish to review each affected employee’s I-94, I-20, EAD, travel plans, and practical-training timeline.

The rule also creates a limited safety valve for certain timely filed extensions. If USCIS receives the F-1 student’s extension-of-stay application before the start of the 30-day F-1 grace period, current CPT may continue while the extension is pending, for up to 240 days, but only through the CPT end date reflected on the DSO-endorsed Form I-20 and only until USCIS adjudicates the extension. For I-9 purposes, the employee’s I-94, combined with a USCIS receipt notice for the extension-of-stay application and the DSO-endorsed CPT I-20, may be treated as unexpired only within those limits. If the student files during the 30-day grace period, the student may be able to remain and study while the extension is pending but cannot continue or begin CPT employment until the extension is approved. For employers, that distinction is critical. A grace-period filing would create an immediate work stoppage for an existing employee or require a waiting period until USCIS approval to begin work.

In short, Day One CPT does not disappear, but it is no longer a casual bridge strategy. The new F-1 rule turns timing, documentation, degree progression, and extension-of-stay planning into central workforce planning issues. Employers that rely on international talent should identify affected employees now and build earlier decision points into immigration calendars. As a practical matter, employers might calendar review points well in advance of an I-94 expiration date, separately track the start of the 30-day grace period, the CPT end date, the Form I-539 receipt date, the 240th day after the relevant expiration trigger, and the extension-of-stay decision date.

The chart below summarizes key differences between the prior D/S framework and the new fixed-period framework as they relate to Day One CPT.

Day One CPT ElementPrior D/S Framework for Day One CPTNew Fixed-Period Framework for Day One CPT
Admission periodI-94 generally issued for duration of status while the student maintained F-1 status and had a valid SEVIS/Form I-20 basis for study or practical training.I-94 will reflect a fixed expiration date, generally tied to the I-20 program length and capped at four years, plus the 30-day grace period. OPT and STEM OPT timing may be tied to the EAD or DSO-recommended employment dates, depending on posture.
Work authorization timingEmployers typically focused on the DSO-endorsed Form I-20 CPT authorization dates, along with ordinary I-9 documentation.Employers must track the DSO-endorsed CPT dates, I-94 expiration dates, the start of the 30-day grace period, any Form I-539 receipt, the 240-day automatic-extension outside date, and the extension-of-stay decision.
Extension of stay procedureA DSO-issued or updated Form I-20 generally supported continued F-1 stay without a separate USCIS extension-of-stay filing, assuming the student maintained status.Form I-539 may be required if the student needs time beyond the current I-94 expiration date. To avoid a CPT work stoppage, USCIS should receive the extension-of-stay application before the 30-day departure period begins.
EOS filed during 30-day departure periodGenerally not applicable in the same way under D/S; most F-1 program extensions did not require a routine Form I-539 extension-of-stay filing.The filing may be timely for purposes of remaining and studying while pending, but the student may not begin or continue CPT or other employment while the extension is pending. Work may resume only if the extension is approved.
Transfers and program changesPotentially greater flexibility to transfer schools or change programs, subject to ordinary F-1, CPT, and SEVIS requirements.Below the graduate level, first-year transfers and changes in educational objectives are restricted absent an SEVP exception. Graduate-level students generally cannot change educational objectives or transfer during the program unless SEVP authorizes a narrow exception.
Same-level degreeA second same-level program might sometimes support continued F-1 study and CPT if the program and CPT independently satisfied F-1 and CPT requirements.After completing a program after the rule’s effective date, a student generally may not maintain, be admitted, or otherwise be provided F-1 status for another program at the same or lower educational level.

Effective April 10, 2026, the U.S. Department of State published a final rule implementing changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) Program to strengthen security, improve vetting, and combat fraud. These changes will apply beginning with the DV-2027 registration cycle.

Under the new rule, individuals entering the DV Lottery must provide information from a valid, unexpired passport when submitting their electronic entry and upload a scan of the passport’s biographic and signature pages. Applicants who qualify for a limited exemption must indicate their eligibility for the exemption at the time of registration. According to the Department of State, these measures are intended to improve identity verification at the registration stage and reduce fraudulent, duplicate, and unauthorized entries. The Department noted that it identified approximately 2.5 million fraudulent entries in the DV-2025 program alone.

The final rule also includes several technical amendments to the regulations, including replacing the term “gender” with “sex,” replacing “age” with “date of birth,” and adding the word “shall” in various provisions to provide clearer guidance and promote consistency in adjudications.

Key Takeaways for DV Applicants

Individuals planning to participate in the DV-2027 lottery should:

  • Ensure their passport is valid and unexpired.
  • Renew any passport that may expire before registration.
  • Maintain a clear electronic copy of the passport’s biographic and signature pages.
  • Carefully review the DV-2027 registration instructions, including any exemption criteria and filing requirements.

On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, outlining a change to the adjustment of status (AOS) process under Form I-485. The Policy Memorandum (PM) states that applicants for permanent residence should generally process for immigrant visas at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad following immigrant petition approval, except in limited circumstances. The PM reframes AOS as an “extraordinary discretionary benefit.”

AOS is the procedure for applying for permanent residence, commonly referred to as a “green card,” while physically in the United States. It is used by applicants who are in the U.S. and relies on a statutory framework outlining AOS eligibility criteria and the administrative process for adjudicating applications. For those outside the U.S., applicants for permanent residence go through a similar process at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, known as “consular processing.” The PM states that AOS is not an entitlement but a discretionary form of “administrative grace,” even where statutory eligibility is met. The PM characterizes AOS as an “extraordinary” remedy that allows applicants to “bypass” the immigrant visa process through consular processing, which the memo describes as the “normal” procedure that “the Congress generally expects aliens to follow.” The PM instructs officers to apply a case-by-case discretionary analysis, weighing positive and negative factors, including immigration violations, failure to maintain status, and failure to depart, as part of a totality of the circumstances assessment.

Who Does This Impact

The PM applies to all AOS applicants, including individuals with:

(1) pending or approved family-based immigrant petitions (Form I-130);
(2) pending or approved employment-based immigrant petitions (Form I-140); and
(3) pending or approved immigrant investor petitions (Form I-526/Form I-526E).

What Is New

The PM reframes AOS as secondary to consular processing. It characterizes AOS as an “extraordinary” form of relief, describes it as an exception that allows applicants to avoid consular processing and states that AOS should be granted sparingly.

What Is Important

The PM directs USCIS officers to evaluate whether an applicant should be granted AOS based on overall equities, including immigration compliance, moral character, family ties to the U.S., and conduct after admission as a nonimmigrant. Officers are instructed to conduct a totality of the circumstances analysis weighing positive against negative factors. The PM also confirms that discretionary denials must articulate why negative factors outweigh positive ones.

The PM elevates certain adverse factors, instructing officers to treat the following as “highly relevant”:

  • Failure to maintain nonimmigrant status;
  • Failure to depart after admission or parole;
  • Conduct inconsistent with the purpose of admission; or
  • Immigration violations or fraud.

The PM states that maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status in dual-intent categories (such as H-1B or L-1) does not automatically guarantee AOS approval; officers are still instructed to apply the totality of the circumstances test using the discretionary factors listed in the PM.

The current Administration has indefinitely suspended the issuance of immigrant visas via consular processing to nationals of 75 countries citing public charge concerns. Notably, the AOS process already includes public charge-related questions, while consular processing currently does not. A finding that an applicant does not warrant the “extraordinary measure” of AOS, combined with the immigrant visa suspension affecting nationals of those 75 countries, could leave a significant number of applicants unable to pursue permanent residence through either pathway. Such a broad suspension of immigrant visas raises questions regarding Congressional intent, given that Congress has statutorily authorized the issuance of 480,000 family-based green cards and 140,000 employment-based each year.

The U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide are also facing capacity constraints following staff reductions, and applicants pursuing consular processing may encounter lengthy wait times for immigrant visas. Applicants with unlawful presence or status violations may trigger a three- or 10-year bar to reentry if they travel abroad and may wish to carefully consider whether to depart and the potential impact on subsequent immigrant visa processing.

Impact on Pending AOS Applications

The PM does not address whether it applies to already pending or newly filed AOS applications. There is no stated effective date, and no specific changes have been made to the USCIS Policy Manual. Because USCIS may seek to apply the PM to pending applications, applicants may consider gathering evidence of positive discretionary factors, including U.S. employment, absence of immigration violations, family and community ties in the U.S., and U.S. investments (particularly for EB-5 investors). USCIS may issue Requests for Evidence (RFEs) seeking documentation to support the totality of the circumstances determination.

Impact on Travel and Work Authorization for AOS Applicants

The PM does not specifically address travel on an advance parole document (AP) or working pursuant to an employment authorization document (EAD) issued while an AOS applicant is pending with USCIS. However, applicants who use AP to travel internationally should be aware that if USCIS seeks to deny the AOS while they are abroad under this guidance, the applicant may face obstacles reentering the U.S. Travel on AP carries additional considerations considering the PM’s publication.

Travel on AP may also disrupt certain types of underlying nonimmigrant status, including B, E, F, J, H-1B1, and O status. Applicants may wish to remain in the U.S. and forego international travel on AP to preserve underlying nonimmigrant status where possible.

What’s Unclear

The PM is subject to a range of interpretations, and its practical application to specific nonimmigrant classifications, including long-term work-authorized categories (dual intent or otherwise), is presently unclear. The PM states that the current statutory framework and the validity of precedent appellate decisions remain unchanged; however, a number of the court decisions cited in the PM are dated or were decided in other contexts, such as removal proceedings and are not directly relevant to AOS applications.

Potential Court Challenges

The PM directs adjudicators to treat AOS as an extraordinary measure secondary to consular processing requiring a showing of “unusual or outstanding circumstances,” which represents a shift in agency practice. Both the statutory interpretation and the reading of case law cited in the PM may become subject to litigation, depending on how the agency’s adjudication practices change.

The AOS statute includes certain exceptions permitting individuals to apply for permanent residence even where they may have violated status, overstayed a visa, or worked without authorization. For example, an immediate relative (such as a spouse or parent of a U.S. citizen) may still apply for AOS without having maintained status or where unauthorized employment occurred. Similarly, the statute provides an exception for certain employment-based applicants who have had a period of unauthorized stay or unauthorized employment of fewer than 180 days. Some of the “negative” factors listed in the PM, including failure to maintain nonimmigrant status and failure to depart after admission or parole, appear to conflict with these statutory exceptions and could form the basis for legal challenge.

Congress has expressly passed the AOS statute permitting these applications. USCIS administers the AOS applications. U.S. federal courts interpret whether policies by USCIS, such as the PM, conflict with Congressional intent or the language of the statute passed by Congress. Litigation in the federal courts may focus on claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including that the PM constitutes a rulemaking disguised as policy guidance (which would require public notice and comment procedures) and/or that the PM is not in accordance with the law (e.g. the “negative factors” listed in the PM conflict with statutory exceptions that still permit AOS approval).

From a policy standpoint, family reunification has been a longstanding principal of U.S. immigration law. Litigation may also focus on the PM’s expressed limitation of AOS as inconsistent with the statutory framework allowing AOS applications for family reunification, including in cases where an applicant violated status or accrued unlawful presence. For EB-5 applicants, Congress passed the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA), which explicitly permits the concurrent filing of AOS applications. There may be potential litigation challenges asserting that the PM conflicts with the plain text and Congressional intent of the RIA.

Any forthcoming litigation will likely seek a temporary restraining order (TRO), which could pause the PM from taking effect and being applied to pending cases.

Practical Considerations

  1. Applicants may document positive discretionary factors in newly filed AOS applications, including family ties in the U.S., lawful employment, community involvement, and tax compliance.
  2. Applicants should maintain their underlying nonimmigrant status where possible and may wish to forego international travel on AP.
  3. Applicants with an approved immigrant petition (Form I-130, Form I-140 or Form I526/I-526E) may wish to file Form I-824 with USCIS to initiate an immigrant visa case with the National Visa Center, which may be used in the event of a subsequent AOS denial.
  4. USCIS may issue additional guidance or clarification on the PM. The PM states that USCIS may issue further guidance on certain AOS categories or discrete populations to aid officers in identifying which applications may or may not be affected. USCIS may also clarify its policy positions following further review of the impact on applicants.

The PM may result in increased difficulty in obtaining a green card through the AOS process, particularly for applicants with prior immigration violations or those holding purely nonimmigrant intent visa categories (B-1/B-2, E-1/E-2/E-3, F-1, J-1, TN, H-1B1, and O-1). While the PM signals potential changes to the AOS process, the underlying statute remains unchanged and the PM may be subject to court challenge.

The U.S. Department of Justice, through its Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), has filed a lawsuit against Cloudera alleging systemic discrimination against U.S. workers in hiring practices tied to the Permanent Labor Certification Program (PERM) process. The PERM process is a U.S. Department of Labor procedure that requires an employer to test the U.S. labor market through good faith recruitment before sponsoring a foreign worker for permanent residency. It is designed to ensure that no qualified and available U.S. workers exist for the role and that hiring the foreign worker will not adversely affect U.S. workers’ wages or working conditions. 

The enforcement action against Cloudera also aligns with the DOJ and DOL’s broader initiative, Project Firewall, which focuses on increased scrutiny of employment-based immigration programs and employer compliance. Launched in 2025, Project Firewall is a planned enforcement initiative by the DOL that focuses on strengthening compliance and deterrence around worker-protection laws. Framed as an internal “firewall” against wage theft and retaliation, Project Firewall aims to combine data analytics, cross-agency coordination, and targeted investigations to identify high-risk employers and industries, including the tech industry.

Legal Background and Issues Raised

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically 8 U.S.C. Section 1324b, prohibits employers from discriminating in hiring or recruitment based on citizenship or immigration status, ensuring that U.S. workers and other protected individuals are not disadvantaged in favor of temporary visa holders. In parallel, the PERM labor certification framework under 20 C.F.R. Part 656 requires employers seeking to sponsor foreign nationals for permanent residency to conduct a genuine, good faith test of the U.S. labor market by using standard, accessible recruitment methods and certifying under penalty of perjury that no qualified U.S. workers are available for the role. These legal requirements are designed to ensure that foreign workers supplement, rather than displace, the U.S. workforce. In the current enforcement environment shaped by Project Firewall, these obligations are being examined more by federal agencies.

The government alleges that Cloudera manipulated its PERM recruitment process in a way that:

  • Prevented U.S. workers from meaningfully applying, and
  • Allowed the company to falsely claim that no qualified U.S. candidates were available.

Overview of the Allegations

The government alleges that from March 2024 through January 2025, Cloudera deviated from its standard hiring practices by creating a separate recruitment process for PERM-related roles, including failing to post these roles on its careers website. Instead, Cloudera allegedly directed applicants to apply through a dedicated email address that did not accept external messages. The government alleges that as a result, U.S. applicants received bounce-back errors, their applications were not received or tracked, and the company made no effort to investigate or remedy the issue, ultimately resulting in no U.S. applicants being considered or hired for at least seven high-paying roles that were sponsored under the PERM process. Despite this, Cloudera allegedly certified to the DOL that it had conducted good faith recruitment and found no qualified U.S. workers.These alleged practices reflect the type of conduct that enforcement efforts under Project Firewall are designed to identify and penalize.

The Charges Against Cloudera

The DOJ brings three primary claims against Cloudera:

Count 1: Cloudera allegedly created an application process that effectively blocked or discouraged U.S. applicants.

Count 2: The company allegedly failed to review or receive applications from U.S. candidates due to its application system.

Count 3: Cloudera allegedly reserved roles for temporary visa holders and denied fair opportunity to U.S. workers.

Requested Remedies

The government seeks remedies including civil penalties, back pay, and injunctive relief. The case highlights that PERM compliance must reflect genuine, accessible, and well-documented recruitment practices aligned with an employer’s normal hiring processes. Deficiencies in this area may expose companies to liability under the INA as well as broader risks affecting their H-1B and employment-based immigration programs, particularly given current enforcement priorities under Project Firewall.

What This Means for Employers

This case showcases that PERM compliance is not a paperwork exercise – it is a substantive test of the labor market. PERM roles must follow the same application channels and accessibility as standard roles, and deviations may be viewed as evidence of intent to exclude U.S. workers. When preparing and filing a PERM application on behalf of a foreign-national employee, an employer should:

  • Confirm that all recruiting channels work properly and that applications are tracked, reviewed, and documented
  • Demonstrate genuine consideration of U.S. applicants by maintaining an application audit report
  • Maintain an audit-ready compliance file for each PERM application submitted to the DOL for certification

Statements made on PERM application filings are under penalty of perjury and can form the basis of DOJ enforcement actions, especially as agencies expand investigations under Project Firewall.

Potential Impact on H-1B and PERM Strategy for Employers

The implications of this case may extend in four ways:

  1. Increased Enforcement and Audits: Employers may see increased enforcement and audits through heightened coordination between the DOJ and DOL, with closer scrutiny of an employer’s:

• Recruitment practices
• Applicant tracking systems
• PERM audit responses

  1. Higher Standard for “Good Faith Recruitment”: The DOJ is employing a higher standard for “Good Faith Recruitment” that evaluates whether an employer’s recruitment is consistent with its normal hiring practices and provides a genuine opportunity for U.S. workers to apply for and be considered for the PERM role – a key focus of Project Firewall.
  2. Risk in PERM Process Engineering: When streamlining or tailoring PERM hiring workflows, particularly through separate application systems, application methods that differ from standard hiring practices, or recruitment postings with limited visibility, employers should know that DOJ may interpret such deviations as discriminatory where they disadvantage U.S. workers from applying for the PERM role.
  3. Reputational Impact and Broader Exposure Beyond PERM: Findings in PERM-related investigations can trigger:

• Wider DOJ investigations into hiring practices extending beyond the PERM program
• Reputational harm to the company
• Potential impact on other visa programs, including H-1B sponsorship

Conclusion

Employers cannot design hiring processes that indirectly exclude U.S. workers while pursuing immigration sponsorship.

PERM compliance sits at the intersection of immigration law, employment law, and enforcement risk. Companies that treat it as a procedural formality rather than a defensible hiring process may face increasing exposure to DOJ investigations, particularly as enforcement initiatives like Project Firewall continue to develop.

On Feb. 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of State issued a Worldwide Caution security alert following the launch of U.S. combat operations in Iran. As security conditions evolve across the Middle East, U.S. embassies and consulates in several countries have suspended or limited consular operations. For individuals with pending visa applications, scheduled interviews, or planned international travel, these developments may affect timelines and travel plans.

Below is a summary of current consular operations in the region as of March 2, 2026. Please note that conditions remain fluid and may change with little notice.

Current US Embassy and Consular Operations

  • Bahrain: The U.S. Embassy in Manama is closed until further notice. Personnel are under a shelter-in-place order.
  • Cyprus: The U.S. Embassy in Nicosia is providing emergency services only and has warned of potential drone activity.
  • Iraq: All consular operations are suspended. Embassy personnel are under shelter-in-place orders.
  • Israel: The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem is closed. All consular services — routine and emergency — are suspended nationwide.
  • Jordan: The U.S. Embassy in Amman remains open, though officials have warned of possible missile and drone activity in Jordanian airspace. Temporary shelter-in-place orders may be issued if security alerts occur.
  • Kuwait: All consular services are suspended until further notice.
  • Lebanon: The Department of State has designated Lebanon as Level 4: Do Not Travel due to terrorism, armed conflict, and civil unrest. All visa processing and consular services are suspended.
  • Oman: Shelter-in-place orders were issued and later lifted. The status of routine consular services remains unclear.
  • Qatar: All routine consular appointments have been cancelled for the week of March 1. Embassy personnel remain under shelter-in-place orders.
  • Saudi Arabia: The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh is reporting normal consular operations as of Feb. 28.
  • United Arab Emirates: Routine consular appointments scheduled March 2–4 in Abu Dhabi and Dubai have been postponed. Applicants should not appear for those appointments and will be contacted to reschedule.

What This May Mean for Visa Applicants and Employers

If employers or their employees are:

  • Waiting for a visa interview,
  • Planning consular processing,
  • Traveling internationally while a visa application is pending, or
  • Coordinating international employee start dates,

They may anticipate:

  • Appointment cancellations or rescheduling,
  • Processing delays,
  • Airspace closures and travel disruptions, and
  • Unpredictable changes to embassy operating status.

Consular posts control their own operations, and local security conditions determine whether appointments proceed.

Steps to Consider Now

  • Monitor the website of specific U.S. embassies or consulates.
  • Enroll in the State Department’s Smart Travel Enrollment Program for security updates.
  • Avoid non-essential travel to countries under security alerts.
  • Build flexibility into travel and employment start dates.
  • Discuss contingency planning if time-sensitive visa issuance is required.

Given the dynamic security environment, international travel and visa processing in the region require careful planning and flexibility. If an individual has a pending matter at a U.S. consulate in the Middle East — or if a company employs foreign nationals who may be affected — proactive communication and contingency planning are essential.

We are closely monitoring developments.

For the most up-to-date government information, visit travel.state.gov and specific U.S. embassies’ websites.