Search results for: OMB

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 impa

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.

The U.S. State Department has announced a temporary halt on immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries, effective Jan. 21, 2026. This pause comes as the department reassesses its vetting procedures under existing immigration law, specifically focusing on the public charge rule — a determination of whether an applicant is likely to require long-term financial or healthcare support from the U.S. government.

Who Does This Impact?

The full list of 75 countries comprises Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, 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.

Why the Pause?

The directive aims to prevent the entry of foreign nationals deemed likely to rely on U.S. welfare or public benefits. This move follows increased scrutiny of public charge rules and broader immigration policy changes under the current administration.

Key Points for Applicants and Employers

  • The government will pause visa decisions starting Jan. 21, 2026.
  • Applicants from affected countries may be able to expect delays and should consider alternative strategies.
  • Employers relying on foreign talent may need to adjust timelines and explore contingency plans.

What Happens Next?

The State Department may release more details soon. For now, applicants and businesses should stay informed and may wish to consult with immigration counsel to navigate this evolving situation.

This week USCIS announced that in a continued effort to upgrade the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, states may now use SAVE to verify the U.S. citizenship status of those voting in federal elections.

States may now use SAVE to verify voters’ citizenship status using the last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number, as opposed to the previously required nine digits. USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser commented, “By allowing states to efficiently verify voter eligibility, we are reinforcing the principle that America’s elections are reserved exclusively for American citizens. We encourage all federal, state, and local agencies to use the SAVE program.”

In response to Executive Order 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” this SAVE upgrade aims to allow registered users to create a SAVE case without needing a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identifier or complete Social Security number. If a voter cannot be identified using their Social Security number, the user agency is prompted to resubmit the search using a DHS-issued identification number or direct the voter to the Social Security Administration to update their record. 

SAVE’s voting initiatives, combined with SAVE’s status verifications for new benefit requests, have together resulted in more than 205 million status verifications in 2025 compared to the 25 million verification queries for all of 2024.

To date, 26 states already have, or are in the process of establishing, a memorandum of agreement for voter verification with SAVE. SAVE is an online service administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that provides immigration status and U.S. citizenship information to federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal agencies. SAVE enables registered user agencies to make decisions for applicants seeking benefits and licenses. Approximately 1,200 agencies nationwide use SAVE to support their benefit eligibility and licensing determinations. This includes agencies such as those that provide health care benefits, social security benefits, education grants and assistance, state driver’s licenses and ID cards, and occupational and professional licenses.

Global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP received the most Tier 1 national rankings, with 43 national rankings, and second-most metropolitan Tier 1 rankings, with 294 metro rankings, in the 2026 Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms.” With 528 total rankings, both metro and national, Greenberg Traurig has the most combined total rankings compared with any other law firm listed.

Continue reading the full GT press release.

This Bloomberg Law article examines how proposed changes to the H-1B visa program are prompting companies to update their compliance practices. The new rules aim to increase transparency and oversight, requiring employers to adopt stricter documentation and reporting procedures. Kate Kalmykov, co-chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Immigration & Compliance practice, noted that these changes are encouraging companies to be more proactive and thorough in their compliance efforts. Experts also observe that organizations are reviewing and improving their internal processes to meet the evolving requirements for hiring foreign workers under the H-1B program.

Read “H-1B Visa Overhaul Spurs New Corporate Compliance Tactics.” (subscription)

GT’s Immigration & Compliance Practice is proud to announce that seven of its lawyers are recognized on the 2026 Best Lawyers in America list, and three are included on the 2026 Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch list. According to the publication, the first list highlights lawyers of outstanding legal capabilities in their respective practices, and the latter spotlights attorneys who offer the same promise early in their careers.

“Best Lawyers in America” List

“Ones to Watch” List

In total, the firm has more attorneys listed in the combined editions than any other law firm in the 2026 guide.

A Workplace Hypothetical

It’s mid-morning at a company’s headquarters, a professional office connected to a warehouse facility. Reception calls to inform the employer that Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are in the lobby. They present a document titled “Warrant for Entry.” It bears a judge’s signature, but it is not a criminal warrant; rather, it is a civil warrant issued under immigration authority. The agents explain that it authorizes them to enter private areas of the workplace, including offices and the warehouse floor, to look for undocumented individuals. Managers turn to the employer for guidance. On the one hand, he wants to cooperate fully with law enforcement. On the other, he may be aware that admitting ICE could raise constitutional issues and create legal exposure for the company. Should the owner allow access? Wait for counsel? This is a dilemma employers may face when confronted with what are known as Blackie’s warrants.

The Nature of Blackie’s Warrants

Blackie’s warrants are named after the 1981 case Blackie’s House of Beef v. Castillo, where the D.C. Circuit held that the Immigration and Naturalization Service could obtain civil warrants from judges to conduct worksite searches. A Blackie’s warrant is a judicially issued civil search warrant. It differs from a criminal warrant because it does not require the same probable cause standard that evidence of a crime will be found. Instead, it is issued in the context of civil immigration enforcement and authorizes ICE to enter nonpublic commercial areas to look for individuals who may be removable under immigration law. The warrant must be signed by a judge or magistrate and must specify the place and scope of the search.

This distinguishes Blackie’s warrants from administrative warrants ICE officers can issue internally, such as Form I-200 (warrant for arrest of an alien) or Form I-205 (warrant of removal/deportation). Those ICE-issued documents are not reviewed by a judge, do not carry judicial authority, and do not allow agents to enter private areas of a workplace without employer consent. Confusion between the two types of warrants is common during worksite encounters.

The Texas Federal Court Challenge

In May 2025, the Southern District of Texas addressed the limits of Blackie’s warrants. U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison rejected ICE’s application for an administrative inspection warrant to search a private business for unauthorized workers. The court held that because employers can face criminal penalties for knowingly employing undocumented workers, such a search was inherently criminal in nature and required a criminal warrant based on probable cause, not a civil warrant. Judge Edison further criticized the government’s application for overbreadth, which sought access to “any locked area” without particularity. He noted that people are not documents or safety hazards, underscoring that immigration enforcement cannot be justified as a routine administrative inspection. This case demonstrates that even judicially issued civil warrants, if vague or expansive, may be subject to challenge for failing to meet constitutional standards.

Comparing Types of Warrants

Employers may encounter three categories of warrants in worksite enforcement. A Blackie’s warrant is a civil search warrant signed by a judge or magistrate. It allows ICE to enter nonpublic commercial areas to look for removable individuals, but its authority is narrower than that of a criminal search warrant. A judicial criminal search warrant, issued under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, requires probable cause of a crime and allows agents to search for specific evidence in designated places. An administrative ICE warrant, by contrast, is signed only by ICE officials and does not authorize entry into private spaces without employer consent. The employer’s dilemma lies in knowing which document is being presented, since refusing a valid judicial warrant can lead to obstruction charges, while complying with an overreaching administrative document can expose the company to privacy, civil rights, and state-law liability.

Public and Private Work Areas

The distinction between public and private spaces remains critical. ICE may lawfully enter public areas of a workplace, such as lobbies or reception desks, without a warrant. Entry into nonpublic areas (including private offices, internal hallways, break rooms, and warehouse floors) requires either employer consent or a judicially issued warrant. Employers that grant entry based only on an ICE-issued administrative form risk exceeding their legal obligations and violating employee rights.

Employee Rights

Employees confronted during worksite enforcement have certain protections. They may decline to answer questions about their immigration status. Employers may wish to be careful not to facilitate questioning in a way that creates claims of discrimination or retaliation. In unionized workplaces, collective bargaining agreements may impose further obligations if ICE enforcement affects working conditions. The risks cut both ways: ICE may view resistance as noncooperation, but employees may view over-compliance as a violation of their rights.

Employer Challenges

Employers find themselves caught in a double bind. Refusing entry under a judicial warrant may risk obstruction charges. Cooperating too broadly under an ICE-issued administrative warrant may risk constitutional challenges, employee claims, and even penalties under state law. The uncertainty can create operational disruption, reputational harm, and long-term legal consequences. This dilemma may be especially pronounced in businesses that operate both public-facing offices and restricted warehouse facilities, where the boundaries between public and private spaces are not always clear.

Additional Legal and Practical Risks

Two further issues may amplify the stakes. First is data privacy. ICE requests often include I-9s, payroll records, and personnel files. Employers risk violating federal or state privacy laws by producing records without proper judicial authorization. With state-level privacy statutes expanding, especially in California and other states, mishandling employee data during enforcement may carry liability. Second are state and local sanctuary laws. Some jurisdictions impose penalties on employers who voluntarily allow ICE access to nonpublic areas or who provide records without a judicial warrant, while other states actively prohibit sanctuary policies and require cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Multi-state employers may face a complex patchwork of conflicting obligations, and what may appear as lawful cooperation in one jurisdiction could trigger penalties in another.

Preparing for ICE Visits

Preparation may help resolve this tension. Employers may wish to adopt a worksite enforcement response plan that distinguishes clearly among types of warrants. Staff may be trained to request and examine the document carefully, to contact legal counsel immediately, and to document the interaction. Employers may wish to avoid granting consent beyond what is legally required, particularly when ICE presents an administrative warrant signed only by the agency. In all cases, the company’s designated legal point of contact may take the lead in determining the proper response.

Conclusion

ICE’s use of Blackie’s warrants underscores the balance between cooperation with law enforcement and protection of constitutional rights. Unlike ICE-issued administrative warrants, Blackie’s warrants do carry judicial authority, but recent rulings highlight their constitutional limits. For employers, the challenge may be acute: cooperate fully and risk overstepping the law, or resist and risk government retaliation. Especially in workplaces that combine public and private areas, preparation and clarity are essential. With appropriate policies, training, and legal support, employers may be able to protect their interests and their employees’ rights when ICE arrives at the workplace door.

Navigating Immigration and Employment Law Requirements in the Remote Work Era

The shift toward remote and hybrid work arrangements has created compliance challenges for U.S. employers sponsoring foreign workers under H-1B, E-3, and H-1B1 classifications. While remote work offers flexibility and expanded talent pools, it introduces complex legal obligations that, if overlooked, may result in substantial penalties and backpay awards, as well as possibly jeopardizing employees’ immigration status.

The Fundamental Requirement: Every Work Location Must Be Covered

Under U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, every location where an H-1B, E-3, or H-1B1 employee performs work must be listed on a Labor Condition Application (LCA) and covered by the underlying petition. This includes the employee’s home office when working remotely.

When an employee works from home, their residence becomes a “worksite” for immigration and labor law purposes. This means:

  • The home address must be listed as a worksite on the LCA
  • The prevailing wage determination must account for the geographic location of the home office
  • Public Access File requirements apply to the home location
  • LCA posting obligations are triggered

The Growing Challenge: Unreported Address Changes

A compliance gap may emerge if employees relocate during their H-1B validity period without informing their employer’s immigration team. This seemingly minor oversight may create cascading compliance complications.

When Employees Move Within the Same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)

If an employee relocates within the same MSA as originally listed on their LCA:

Required Action: The employer must post a notice in two conspicuous places at the employee’s new residence, where they work remotely, for 10 business days and update the respective Public Access File.

Common Failure: HR teams update payroll records and internal systems but fail to notify immigration counsel, resulting in a lack of required postings at the new location and outdated, deficient Public Access File documentation.

Consequences:

  • DOL violations and potential civil fines
  • Wage and hour compliance deficiencies
  • Exposure to whistleblower complaints
  • Potential backpay obligations

When Employees Move Outside the Original MSA

If an employee relocates outside the MSA covered by their current LCA:

Required Action: File an amended H-1B petition with a new LCA covering the new geographic area before the employee begins work at the new location.

Common Failure: Employees relocate and continue working without the employer’s knowledge, creating an immediate status violation.

Consequences:

  • Employee is violating the terms of their H-1B status
  • Difficulty obtaining future extensions or renewals
  • Potential bars to future immigration benefits
  • Employer exposure to willful violator status
  • Potentially significant monetary penalties and backpay awards

Wage and Hour Compliance Risks

The DOL’s enforcement focus on prevailing wage compliance makes unreported address changes particularly precarious. Key risks include:

Prevailing Wage Violations

  • Different geographic areas have different prevailing wage rates that may differ greatly
  • Failure to obtain a new LCA containing a prevailing wage determination for the new location may result in underpayment
  • Backpay calculations may extend across multiple years

Record-Keeping Deficiencies

  • Public Access Files must be maintained and cover each worksite, including home office locations
  • Missing documentation for home office locations creates automatic violations
  • DOL and Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) audits often focus on remote work arrangements, including in-person visits

Case Study: The Hidden Costs of Poor Communication

Consider the following real-world scenario that illustrates the consequences of inadequate address change procedures:

The Situation: Sarah, a software engineer in H-1B status, was initially hired to work in Dallas, Texas, with a Level 4 prevailing wage determination of $156,998 annually. Her employer’s remote work policy allowed employees to work from home, and her LCA properly listed her Dallas residence as a worksite.

The Move: One year into her three-year H-1B validity period, Sarah relocated to San Francisco to be closer to family. She promptly informed HR and payroll of her address change, and her W-2 forms began reflecting California state taxes. However, the payroll team failed to notify the company’s immigration team about the relocation.

The Compliance Failure: Sarah’s move from Dallas to San Francisco represented a change to a different MSA with a substantially higher prevailing wage, approximately $213,512 for a Level 4 software engineer position in the San Francisco area, an annual difference of $56,514. Under DOL regulations, this required:

  • Filing a new LCA with the higher prevailing wage determination
  • Filing an amended H-1B petition before Sarah started working from her San Francisco residence
  • Adjusting Sarah’s salary to meet the new required wage (the higher of actual wage and prevailing wage level)

None of these steps were taken because the company’s immigration team was unaware of the move.

The Discovery: Two years later, when Sarah’s employer filed her H-1B extension petition, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). USCIS had cross-referenced Sarah’s petition against her California state tax records and identified the discrepancy between her approved work location (Dallas) and her actual work location (San Francisco).

The Consequences: The RFE created multiple serious problems:

  • Immediate Status Risk: Sarah’s continued work in San Francisco without proper LCA coverage violates the terms of her H-1B status
  • Wage Violations: Sarah had been underpaid by approximately $56,514 annually for two years relative to the San Francisco prevailing wage
  • Extension Jeopardy: The extension petition faced potential denial due to the compliance violations
  • Backpay Exposure: The employer faced potential liability of $113,028 in prevailing wage underpayments
  • Future Petition Risk: The violation could impact Sarah’s ability to obtain future H-1B extensions or to adjust status to permanent residence

The Resolution Costs: To address the violation, the employer had to:

  • Engage specialized immigration counsel for RFE response preparation
  • File corrective amended petitions and LCAs
  • Pay prevailing wage backpay to Sarah
  • Implement enhanced compliance procedures company-wide
  • Face increased scrutiny from authorities on its immigration program

This case demonstrates how a simple communication breakdown can escalate into a six-figure compliance problem with lasting immigration consequences.

How These Violations Are Discovered

The increasing sophistication of government enforcement mechanisms means that address change violations are more likely to be detected than ever before. Employers should be aware of the following discovery methods:

FDNS Site Visits

The FDNS unit conducts unannounced site visits to verify petition information. During these visits, inspecting officers may discover that employees have relocated to new addresses without proper LCA amendments or H-1B petition updates. FDNS officers are specifically trained to identify compliance gaps and will document any discrepancies between approved work locations and actual employee residences.

USCIS Cross-Referencing During Petition Adjudication

As demonstrated in the software engineer case study above, USCIS increasingly cross-references employee state tax filings against residential addresses on record during the adjudication of new H-1B filings, including amendments and extensions. This data matching has become more sophisticated and systematic, making it more likely that geographic discrepancies will be identified during routine petition processing.

Biometric RFEs and Address Verification

USCIS is issuing RFEs requiring H-1B employees to complete biometrics appointments across multiple petition types, but mostly on H-1B petitions and I-140 immigrant petitions, even though these cases do not typically require biometric collection. During these appointments, USCIS captures current address information and cross-references it against the approved petition locations. This enforcement mechanism allows USCIS to identify address changes that were never reported to immigration authorities, creating an additional layer of compliance verification that employers may not be unprepared for.

The expansion of biometric RFEs to I-140 immigrant petitions demonstrates that USCIS is using address verification as a compliance tool across the entire immigration continuum. Employees who may have had compliant H-1B petitions initially but developed violations during the validity period may find their permanent residence applications jeopardized when USCIS discovers unreported address changes during I-140 adjudication.

ICE I-9 Audits

During Form I-9 compliance audits, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may identify H-1B deficiencies when reviewing employee documentation. While this discovery method is currently less common, employers should anticipate increased scrutiny as compliance enforcement becomes stricter and more integrated across agencies. ICE auditors are trained to spot immigration status violations that may not be immediately apparent from I-9 documentation alone.

Employee Self-Reporting

H-1B employees who become aware of prevailing wage requirements may file complaints when they realize they are being underpaid due to their employer’s failure to update LCAs for new work locations. These complaints may trigger DOL wage and hour investigations and result in significant penalties. Educated employees increasingly understand their rights and may seek legal counsel when they suspect wage violations.

Department of State Referrals

During consular visa interviews for visa renewals or family member applications, consular officers may identify discrepancies between an employee’s stated residential address and the work location listed on their H-1B petition. While currently uncommon, this discovery method may become more frequent as consular officers receive enhanced training on H-1B compliance issues and as information sharing between agencies improves.

H-1B Change of Employer Petition Complications

Another discovery method involves H-1B change of employer petitions (portability cases). When an employee transfers to a new employer, USCIS may identify prior compliance violations during the adjudication process by cross-referencing the employee’s state tax filings against the previous employer’s H-1B petition.

The Problem for New Employers: This situation creates an impossible burden for new employers because they typically do not have access to the prior employer’s complete H-1B petition file. The new employer cannot reasonably identify potential compliance issues before filing their change of employer petition, yet they may face petition denials or RFEs based on the prior employer’s failures.

Heightened Risk During Grace Periods: This issue is particularly acute for employees in the 60-day grace period following termination. USCIS has significantly increased its use of Notices to Appear (NTAs) for individuals found to be no longer maintaining legal status. When a compliance violation from a prior employer is discovered during a change of employer petition, it may trigger NTA issuance even if:

  • The current employee had little to no control over the prior employer’s compliance failures
  • The new employer performed reasonable due diligence but could not access the relevant information
  • The violation may have occurred years earlier and remained undetected

Practical Implications:

  • New employers may unknowingly inherit compliance problems caused by an employee’s prior employer
  • Employees face increased risk of removal proceedings for violations beyond their control
  • The traditional assumption that change of employer petitions are routine filings no longer holds
  • Employers should consider enhancing due diligence and vetting processes despite limited access to prior petition information

Risk to Prior Employers: The compliance violations don’t disappear when an employee changes employers. Former employers remain exposed to liability when H-1B deficiencies are discovered during change of employer adjudications. Once a former employee learns that their previous H-1B petition was deficient due to an unreported address change with a higher prevailing wage, they may pursue backpay claims against their former employer. These claims can extend back several years and involve substantial amounts, particularly when the wage differential between geographic areas is significant. The former employer cannot cure the violation since the employee has already departed, leaving them fully exposed to the financial consequences of their compliance failure.

Whistleblower Reports

Current or former employees, competitors, or other third parties may report suspected violations to DOL or USCIS. The anonymous nature of many reporting mechanisms makes this an ongoing risk for noncompliant employers.

The key takeaway is that these violations are no longer hidden in administrative silos. Government agencies are increasingly sharing information and using sophisticated data matching techniques that make discovery more likely and more systematic than in the past.

Beyond Geography: Wage Level Classification Risks

While geographic-based prevailing wage violations represent a significant compliance risk, employers face additional exposure from incorrectly classifying the job classification and the wage level for H-1B positions. This issue, compounded with the address change problem, may create further liability.

The Four-Level System Challenge

The prevailing wage system classifies positions into four levels based on experience, education, and job complexity:

  • Level 1: Entry-level positions requiring basic understanding
  • Level 2: Qualified positions requiring sound understanding
  • Level 3: Experienced positions requiring good understanding
  • Level 4: Fully competent positions requiring excellent understanding

Common Misclassification Scenarios

Many employers face two distinct types of classification errors that may result in significant compliance violations:

Wage Level Misclassification

Employers may under-classify positions to reduce labor costs, selecting Level 1 or Level 2 wages when the position actually requires Level 3 or Level 4 compensation.

Job Classification Misclassification

Beyond wage levels, employers often select incorrect job classifications entirely. The duties and responsibilities of different positions carry substantially different prevailing wages, even within similar fields. For example:

Similar but Distinct Classifications:

  • A “Systems Analyst” classification carries a lower prevailing wage than a “Software Engineer” classification, despite overlapping responsibilities
  • “Computer Programmer” wages differ significantly from “Software Developer” wages
  • “Database Administrator” and “Computer Systems Analyst” have different wage requirements

Bachelor’s Degree Requirement Violations: The H-1B category fundamentally requires that the proposed U.S. assignment necessitate at least a bachelor’s-level education. Selecting job classifications that require only an associate’s degree creates an immediate compliance concern. For example, selecting “Computer Network Support Specialists” for an employee performing bachelor’s-level work, even though DOL data indicates the position requires an associate’s degree, may result in:

  • Denial of the H-1B petition for failing to meet specialty occupation requirements
  • Significant backpay awards if the misclassification is discovered during employment
  • Potential willful violator findings if the pattern is systemic
  • Review of an employer’s entire immigration program

These job classification errors may create several compounding problems.

Compounding Geographic Issues: When an employee moves to a higher-wage area and the employer has made both wage level and job classification errors, the underpayment exposure multiplies. An employee initially classified as a Level 1 “Computer Network Support Specialist” in Dallas who should have been a Level 4 “Software Engineer,” then moves to San Francisco, faces a triple violation (geographic change, incorrect wage level, and incorrect job classification) potentially creating enormous backpay liability.

Audit Vulnerability: DOL audits specifically examine whether both the job classification and wage level selection match the actual job requirements. Auditors review:

  • Job descriptions and actual duties performed against standard occupational classifications
  • Required qualifications versus employee credentials and degree requirements
  • Supervision levels and decision-making authority
  • Comparison with similar positions at the employer and industry standards

Systematic Violations: Unlike address changes that affect individual employees, both job classification and wage level misclassification often reflect company-wide practices, potentially affecting multiple H-1B employees simultaneously and creating backpay exposure across entire departments or job categories.

Civil Penalty Exposure

Wage level violations carry the same penalty structure as geographic wage violations under 20 CFR 655.810 (2025 penalty amounts as adjusted by Federal Register, Vol. 90, No. 8, Jan. 10, 2025):

  • Willful Violations: Up to $67,367 per violation plus backpay
  • Substantial Failure: Up to $9,624 per violation plus backpay
  • Technical Violations: Up to $2,364 per violation plus backpay

When combined with multi-year underpayments across multiple employees, these penalties can reach seven figures for employers with systematic misclassification practices.

Program Debarment

For employers with systemic, widespread violations, the DOL can impose the most severe penalty available: debarment from the H-1B program under INA § 212(n)(2). This sanction prohibits an employer from filing any H-1B petitions for up to three years.

Debarment Requirements: Under DOL Fact Sheet #62S, debarment requires formal enforcement proceedings with specific findings:

  • A finding of violation must be entered in either a DOL proceeding under INA §212(n)(2) or a Department of Justice proceeding under INA §212(n)(5)
  • The agency must find that the employer committed either a willful failure or misrepresentation of material fact involving at least two Labor Condition Application attestations
  • The violation must have occurred after Oct. 21, 1998

Additional Consequences:

  • Debarred employers are subject to random DOL investigations for up to five years from the date of willful violator determination
  • Complete prohibition on filing new H-1B petitions during the debarment period

Business Impact: For technology companies, consulting firms, health care organizations, and other employers that rely heavily on H-1B workers, debarment can be business-threatening. The consequences include:

  • Complete inability to hire new international talent
  • Loss of competitive advantage in global talent acquisition
  • Potential departure of existing H-1B employees who cannot obtain extensions
  • Damage to employer brand and reputation in international markets
  • Disruption of long-term business planning and growth strategies

No Workarounds: Unlike monetary penalties that can be paid, debarment cannot be cured through compliance efforts during the prohibition period. Employers facing debarment must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to avoid or reduce the sanction period.

Inadequate documentation makes it difficult to defend wage level selections during audits and increases the likelihood of violations being classified as “willful” rather than technical.

Additional Compliance Considerations for Employers

Establish Clear Policies

  • Require employees to report any address changes immediately
  • Include address change obligations in employment agreements and handbook policies
  • Create specific procedures for remote work approvals

Implement Monitoring Systems

  • Regular audits of employee addresses across HR, payroll, and immigration systems
  • Quarterly compliance reviews to identify discrepancies
  • Technology solutions to flag address changes automatically

Coordinate Across Departments

  • Ensure HR, payroll, immigration, and legal teams communicate regularly
  • Designate a point person responsible for address change compliance
  • Create checklists and workflows for processing address changes

Proactive LCA Management

  • File LCAs for anticipated remote work locations before employees relocate
  • Consider broader geographic coverage in initial LCA filings where appropriate
  • Maintain updated prevailing wage determinations for common relocation areas

Employee Education

  • Train employees on their reporting obligations
  • Explain the serious consequences of unreported moves
  • Provide clear instructions on how to report address changes

Immediate Actions

Employers should consider taking the following steps to help address potential compliance gaps:

  1. Conduct an Audit: Review current employee addresses across all systems to identify discrepancies
  2. Implement Reporting Procedures: Establish clear processes for employees to report address changes
  3. Update Policies: Revise employment agreements and handbooks to include specific address change obligations
  4. Train Teams: Educate HR, payroll, and management on immigration compliance requirements for remote work
  5. Engage Immigration Counsel: Work with experienced immigration attorneys to assess current compliance and develop remediation strategies where necessary

Conclusion

The intersection of remote work flexibility and immigration compliance creates challenges for U.S. employers. While remote work offers benefits, it also comes with legal obligations. Employers who proactively address these compliance requirements may avoid costly penalties while maintaining the flexibility that makes them competitive in today’s talent market.

A strategy for maintaining compliance is treating address changes as immigration events requiring immediate attention, not merely administrative updates. By implementing robust monitoring and reporting systems, employers may be able to harness the benefits of remote work while complying with their immigration and labor law obligations.

This article provides general guidance on immigration compliance matters. Employers should consult with experienced immigration counsel to address specific situations and ensure compliance with current regulations.

A 12-month pilot program requiring financial guarantees will begin Aug. 20, 2025

The U.S. Department of State has announced a new visa bond pilot program that, while currently limited in scope, may introduce new challenges to business travel starting Aug. 20, 2025. The program, published on Aug. 5, 2025, in the Federal Register, requires nationals from certain countries to post financial bonds before obtaining B-1/B-2 visitor visas.

Visa Bond Program Countries: Initial Implementation for Malawi and Zambia

Beginning Aug. 20, 2025, the program will apply to nationals of Malawi and Zambia, but the Department of State has explicitly reserved the right to add additional countries with 15 days’ notice. While this limited initial rollout applies to specific countries at present, the underlying legal framework and operational infrastructure are being tested for potential broader application.

Visa Bond Requirements: $5,000-$15,000 Financial Guarantee

The program requires affected visa applicants to post bonds of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 at the discretion of consular officers. These amounts represent financial hurdles that might prevent business travel for some employees or require employers to front costs.

The bond amounts were specifically calibrated based on the estimated $17,121 cost of immigration enforcement per individual, signaling the government’s intent to impose financial consequences for overstays. While bonds are refundable upon compliance with visa terms, the upfront cash requirement may create liquidity challenges.

Entry Requirements: Designated Airports, Visa Validity, and Stay Duration

Beyond the financial requirements, the program imposes logistical constraints that may complicate business travel planning:

  • Designated airports only: Travelers must enter and exit the United States exclusively through Boston Logan International Airport (BOS), John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), or Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD).
  • Limited visa validity: Visas are valid for single entry within three months of issuance.
  • Shortened stays: CBP officers will limit admission periods to 30 days maximum.

These restrictions may limit flexibility for business travelers and may require companies to restructure travel plans around these three gateway airports, potentially increasing costs and reducing efficiency.

Business Travel Planning: Employer Considerations for Visa Bond Compliance

For employers with current employees or business relationships in affected countries:

  1. Financial planning: Consider whether to advance bond payments for essential business travel, recognizing the temporary nature of these funds;
  2. Travel routing: Restructure travel itineraries to accommodate the three designated airports;
  3. Timeline management: Account for the additional processing time and 30-day payment window for bond posting;
  4. Documentation support: Assist employees in gathering evidence of departure compliance to ensure bond return.

Risk management strategies:

  • Monitor the Department of State’s travel.state.gov announcements for additional countries;
  • Review current business relationships and travel patterns from countries with high overstay rates; and
  • Consider alternative meeting formats (virtual, third-country locations) for routine business.

Visa Bond Selection Criteria: Overstay Rates and Country Eligibility Factors

While currently limited to two countries, this program represents a policy shift toward using financial deterrents in visitor visa programs. The Department of State has identified three criteria for inclusion:

  • High visa overstay rates;
  • Deficient screening and vetting information; and
  • Citizenship-by-investment programs without residency requirements.

These categories may potentially encompass additional countries, particularly those offering economic citizenship programs or with higher than average overstay rates, according to DHS annual reports.

Visa Bond Processing: Multi-Agency Coordination and Pay.gov Implementation

The program introduces administrative complexity, requiring coordination between multiple agencies (State, Treasury, and DHS) and new systems integration through Pay.gov. The Department has acknowledged this is primarily a feasibility study, suggesting that successful implementation may lead to expansion. The Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS), which tracks compliance, sometimes contains errors, creating additional risks for bond forfeiture even for compliant travelers.

Visa Bond Program Timeline: August 2025-2026 Pilot and Potential Expansion

This 12-month pilot program, launching Aug. 20, 2025, and running through Aug. 5, 2026, is designed to assess operational feasibility for broader implementation. The Department of State has characterized it as a “diplomatic tool” to encourage foreign governments to address overstay rates and improve identity verification systems.

Employers should monitor developments, as the program’s success may lead to expansion to additional countries or different visa categories. The legal framework already exists for similar requirements on F-1 student visas, though the pilot is currently limited to B-1/B-2 visitors. With 14 days until implementation, companies with employees or business relationships in Malawi and Zambia may wish to begin preparations.

Business Impact: Preparing for the US Visa Bond Program Requirements

While the immediate impact will affect only travelers from Malawi and Zambia starting Aug. 20, 2025, the visa bond pilot program may establish new precedents for business travel. Companies have a 15-day window to prepare for these changes and should consider beginning to develop contingency plans, both for current affected relationships and potential future expansion of the program.

The combination of financial requirements, logistical restrictions, and administrative complexity may create new challenges that employers must navigate carefully. The 15-day notice period for adding new countries provides little time for adjustment once changes are announced.

This analysis is based on the Department of State’s Temporary Final Rule, published Aug. 5, 2025, and current guidance documents. Immigration law and policy can change rapidly, and specific situations may require individual legal consultation.