DOL Proposed Rule to Modernize PERM Labor Certification Clears White House Review The Office of Management and Budget has cleared a Department of Labor proposed rule that could substantially rewrite the PERM labor certification process. The proposal is expected to address recruitment standards, protections for U.S. workers affected by layoffs, and employer compliance requirements. The regulatory text has not been published yet, so the specific provisions remain unknown. Current PERM regulations stay in effect until any final rule is adopted. Employers with pending or planned PERM filings should monitor the Federal Register for publication and prepare to engage during the public comment period. The PERM Takeaway: This is the biggest development for PERM employers in this entire news cycle. A proposed rule clearing OMB review means the regulatory text is close to publication, and everything we have seen from the administration this year points toward tighter standards. The executive order tying H-1B approvals to layoff history, the Microsoft and Adobe suspensions, the proposal to end deference to prior approvals: all of those signal where DOL is heading with PERM. Expect the proposed rule to raise the bar on recruitment documentation, expand the definition of what constitutes adequate testing of the U.S. labor market, and add layoff-related compliance requirements that mirror the H-1B executive order. Employers should not wait for the text to start preparing. Review your current recruitment processes, job posting practices, and internal documentation standards now. When the proposed rule publishes, you want to be reading it with a compliance framework already in place, not building one from scratch. The comment period will be the industry's chance to shape the final rule, and PERM employers, immigration attorneys, and ad agencies all have a direct stake in what those final requirements look like. Citizenship Approvals Fall 72% as the Naturalization Backlog Grows Past 800,000 U.S. citizenship approvals dropped 72% in the first eight months of 2026 compared to the same period in 2025, according to The Washington Post. The naturalization backlog has swelled from roughly 500,000 to more than 800,000 pending applications. Applicants are reporting delayed interviews and canceled ceremonies. The administration attributes the slowdown to expanded screening and vetting requirements. Applicants should expect longer processing times and monitor their USCIS accounts for updates. The PERM Takeaway: A 72% drop in citizenship approvals is a staggering number, and it confirms what the Q3 processing data showed earlier this month: USCIS is falling further behind across the board. When the agency is processing naturalization cases at less than a third of last year's pace, that resource strain bleeds into every other program. Employment-based petition adjudications, EAD renewals, and I-485 processing all compete for the same pool of agency resources. For PERM employers, the practical takeaway is to build longer lead times into every filing that depends on a USCIS decision. If your sponsored employee's work authorization hinges on a timely EAD renewal or I-485 adjudication, assume the timeline will be longer than the posted estimate. The loss of automatic EAD extensions, combined with an agency processing at reduced capacity, means the margin for error on authorization gaps is shrinking. File early, file complete, and have a backup plan for every case where a lapsed document could pull an employee off the job. Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Rule Shortening Refugees' Appeal Window A federal judge in Boston temporarily blocked a USCIS rule that cut the time refugees have to respond to a notice of intent to terminate their status from 30 days to 10 days. Judge Julia Kobick's order runs through November 6, when a different judge will decide whether to extend it. DHS estimated the rule could affect up to 186,000 refugees. The court has not yet ruled on whether the rule is lawful, so the timeline could change depending on the next ruling. The PERM Takeaway: This rule does not directly touch the PERM process, but it fits a pattern that PERM employers should be watching. The administration is compressing response timelines across multiple immigration categories. Shorter windows to respond to termination notices, the end of automatic EAD extensions, the proposal to deny cases without first requesting evidence: all of these reduce the time immigrants and their employers have to react. For PERM employers, that means building responsiveness into your compliance infrastructure. When USCIS issues an audit letter on a PERM filing, the response window is fixed, and there is no indication that those deadlines will get longer. Make sure your internal processes can produce a complete audit response within the required timeframe, and keep recruitment records organized and accessible so counsel does not have to reconstruct them under deadline pressure. USCIS Allows Certain CBP One Parolees to Request Case Reopening Without a Fee Following a federal court order in the Sileiri Doe litigation, USCIS announced that qualifying individuals whose parole was terminated in April 2025 may request reopening or reconsideration of certain adverse immigration decisions without paying a filing fee. Eligibility is limited to specific class members and specific decisions. Anyone who believes they may qualify should review the USCIS announcement and consult with an immigration attorney. The PERM Takeaway: This development is narrow in scope and unlikely to affect most PERM employers directly. But it illustrates a broader dynamic worth understanding: federal court orders are regularly forcing USCIS to reopen or reconsider decisions the agency made under current policies. For employers whose sponsored employees have received adverse USCIS decisions, the lesson is that litigation outcomes in other cases can sometimes create reopening opportunities. Counsel should be tracking relevant class action settlements and court orders that might benefit their clients, even when the original case involves a different immigration category. Supreme Court Leaves Restrictions on Immigration Court Case Closures in Place The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a dispute over administrative closure, the practice that allows immigration judges to temporarily shelve deportation cases from their active dockets. The October 27 decision leaves a nationwide restriction on case closures in place while lower court litigation continues. The change affects individuals who are in removal proceedings while waiting for decisions on family-based petitions or other immigration benefits. The PERM Takeaway: Administrative closure was the mechanism that allowed immigration judges to park a deportation case while the respondent pursued a separate immigration benefit, such as an employer-sponsored green card. Without that option, removal proceedings can continue even while a PERM case or I-140 petition is pending. For employers who are sponsoring an employee who is also in removal proceedings, the inability to close the removal case creates a parallel track that adds legal complexity and cost. Counsel needs to manage both proceedings simultaneously, and any misstep in the removal case could undermine the employment-based sponsorship. If you have a sponsored employee in this situation, make sure your immigration team and the employee's removal defense attorney are coordinating closely. These cases require a unified strategy across both proceedings. Stay sharp, stay compliant, and we'll see you next week.

November 2026 Visa Bulletin Brings Forward Movement After October's Pullback The State Department released the November 2026 Visa Bulletin, and the employment-based categories are moving in the right direction after October's retrogression shook up the start of FY2027. EB-2 advanced three months for most countries, Mexico, and the Philippines, pushing the final action date to April 1, 2025. EB-3 skilled workers moved forward one month for most countries and Mexico. China picked up modest gains in both EB-3 (14 days) and EB-1 (one month), while India's EB-3 advanced 21 days. USCIS confirmed that applicants filing for adjustment of status in November may continue using the Dates for Filing charts. That said, most Dates for Filing remain unchanged, which means the forward movement in final action dates brings some applicants closer to green card approval but does not necessarily expand who can file new applications this month. On the family-based side, November delivers broad progress. F-1, F-2B, F-3, and F-4 all advanced roughly one year for most countries under the Final Action Dates chart. F-2A moved forward by one month. Mexico and the Philippines remain stuck in several categories, a pattern that has held for most of the fiscal year. Key Employment-Based Movements: EB-1 (Extraordinary Ability, Outstanding Researchers, Multinational Executives): China advanced one month to August 1, 2023. India held at February 1, 2023. All other countries remain current. EB-2 (Advanced Degree Holders, Exceptional Ability): Most countries, Mexico, and the Philippines advanced three months to April 1, 2025. China held at October 1, 2021. India held at November 1, 2013. EB-3 Skilled Workers/Professionals: Most countries and Mexico advanced one month to June 15, 2024. China advanced 14 days to January 22, 2022. India advanced 21 days to January 22, 2014. Philippines held at August 15, 2023. EB-3 Other Workers: Most countries and Mexico jumped five months to June 1, 2022. China held at October 1, 2019. India advanced 21 days to January 22, 2014. Philippines held at January 1, 2022. EB-4 (Special Immigrants): No movement across any country. All dates held at December 15, 2022. EB-5 (Investors): No movement. China held at December 1, 2016. India held at December 1, 2023. All other countries remain current. The PERM Takeaway: After October's retrogression rattled employers and employees watching their priority dates, November's forward movement is a welcome correction. The three-month EB-2 advance for most countries is the standout. If you have sponsored employees with approved I-140s and priority dates before April 1, 2025, their cases just became current or moved closer. Counsel should be reviewing every pending case against the updated chart to identify who can now file for adjustment of status or who has moved into the Dates for Filing window. The India and China backlogs remain the long-term challenge. India EB-2 is still sitting at November 2013, which means a 13-year wait from priority date to final action. China EB-2 is frozen at October 2021. For employers sponsoring workers from these countries, the November bulletin does not change the fundamental math. The EB-3 Other Workers category saw the most aggressive movement this month, jumping five months for most countries and Mexico. Employers with pending cases in that category should check whether any of their employees crossed into current status. The fact that most Dates for Filing did not move is worth paying attention to. Forward movement in final action dates without corresponding movement in filing dates means fewer new applications entering the pipeline, even as some existing cases advance toward approval. That gap affects workforce planning because it determines when a sponsored employee can actually submit their adjustment paperwork. Employers should be tracking the Visa Bulletin monthly and matching it against their active PERM and I-140 cases. Every month that a priority date advances is an opportunity to move a case forward, and missing that window because nobody checked the bulletin is an avoidable mistake. Stay sharp, stay compliant, and we'll see you next week.

DHS Proposes Ending Deference to Previous Visa Approvals DHS has proposed eliminating the longstanding policy that directs USCIS officers to generally defer to prior approvals when reviewing employment-based nonimmigrant extension petitions involving the same employer, employee, and underlying facts. If finalized, the change would affect H-1B, L-1, O-1, and other extension petitions. Officers would evaluate each filing from scratch rather than giving weight to the fact that the same case was already approved. That means more requests for evidence, longer processing times, and higher preparation costs for employers filing routine extensions. The proposal has not taken effect yet. Public comments are open through November 13 . The PERM Takeaway: Deference to prior approvals has been the backbone of efficient H-1B extension processing for years. When USCIS approved a petition the first time and nothing material changed, the extension was largely a formality. Removing that deference turns every renewal cycle into a full adjudication. For PERM employers, this compounds the workload at both ends of the sponsorship process. You are already building a case from the ground up for the PERM labor certification. Now, the nonimmigrant petition that keeps the employee authorized to work while the green card case moves forward would also require a full evidentiary build each time it comes up for renewal. Counsel should be preparing extension filings as though deference is already gone, because the direction of travel is clear. Assemble the same level of documentation you would for an initial petition: detailed support letters, updated organizational charts, current financial evidence, and a thorough explanation of the position and the employee's qualifications. If the final rule matches the proposal, employers who already adopted that standard will not miss a beat. The comment period closes November 13, and employers who rely on extensions to bridge employees through lengthy PERM processing times have a direct interest in making their position known. Federal Judge Upholds USCIS's EB-1A Two-Step Review Process A federal judge in Nebraska upheld USCIS's use of the two-step review framework for EB-1A extraordinary ability green card petitions. In Agarwal v. Miller, the court rejected a challenge to the agency's final merits determination, the second step that evaluates whether an applicant has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim beyond simply meeting the initial evidentiary criteria. The September ruling follows a conflicting decision from a different Nebraska federal judge, which means the legal question is not settled. For now, applicants should continue building their cases to satisfy both steps: meeting the specific regulatory criteria and independently demonstrating that they stand at the top of their field. The PERM Takeaway: EB-1A sits outside the traditional PERM process because extraordinary ability petitions do not require labor certification. But EB-1A outcomes affect PERM employers because they shape the competitive landscape for talent. When EB-1A approvals tighten, more applicants who might have self-petitioned end up pursuing employer-sponsored EB-2 or EB-3 green cards through PERM instead. That increases demand on the PERM pipeline and puts more pressure on already-retrogressed visa categories. The conflicting judicial opinions also create geographic uncertainty. Depending on which court's reasoning prevails, EB-1A adjudication standards could vary by jurisdiction until a higher court resolves the split. Employers with employees considering EB-1A should make sure counsel is building the case to survive the stricter two-step standard, because that is the version USCIS is applying and the version the most recent court endorsed. Proposed Premium Processing Changes Enter Federal Review A proposed rule titled "Amending the Premium Processing Timeframe" was submitted to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on October 13 for review. The proposal has not been published, and the specific changes remain unknown. Premium processing currently allows eligible petitions to receive expedited USCIS adjudication within designated timeframes. Current deadlines remain in effect while the proposal is under review, but the submission signals that changes to those timelines are under active consideration. The PERM Takeaway: Premium processing is how employers buy predictability in a system that otherwise operates on USCIS's schedule. Any change to the guaranteed timeframes affects workforce planning directly. If the processing window gets longer, employers lose the ability to time H-1B start dates, respond to project deadlines, or onboard sponsored workers within a predictable window. If the window gets shorter, the cost may increase. Until the proposal is published, the specifics are speculation, but the fact that it entered White House review means a change is coming. Employers should monitor the Federal Register for publication and be ready to comment. If your company depends on premium processing to manage H-1B timelines, particularly during cap season or for employees bridging between PERM approval and adjustment of status, any shift in processing guarantees is directly relevant to your operations. DHS Allows Ukraine and Sudan TPS Protections to Continue DHS confirmed that Temporary Protected Status protections for eligible nationals of Ukraine and Sudan will remain in effect while the agency evaluates the future of both designations. The protections were set to expire October 19, but USCIS clarified that affected individuals may continue living and working in the United States pending further announcements. DHS has not said how long the protections will last, leaving TPS holders and their employers in a familiar holding pattern. The PERM Takeaway: TPS extensions without a defined end date create a recurring planning challenge for employers. Workers with TPS-based employment authorization are legally authorized to work, but the authorization rests on a designation that can be terminated or allowed to expire at any time. For employers who have TPS holders on staff, the continuation is good news in the short term, but it does not eliminate the underlying instability. If you have a valued employee whose work authorization depends on TPS, this is the moment to evaluate whether employer-sponsored permanent residence through PERM makes sense. A green card removes the employee from the cycle of TPS renewals and gives both the employer and the worker a stable long-term authorization. Counsel should also be checking I-9 documentation for TPS employees to ensure that current employment authorization documents reflect the extension and that re-verification is handled correctly once USCIS publishes updated guidance. Stay sharp, stay compliant, and we'll see you next week.

DHS Ends Automatic Extensions for Certain Work Permits DHS has finalized a rule ending automatic extensions of employment authorization for certain applicants who are renewing their work permits. Under the previous framework, eligible applicants could continue working while USCIS processed their renewal, sometimes for up to 540 days past the card's expiration date. That safety net is going away. The change means that immigrants facing long processing times could hit a gap where their work authorization expires before the renewal is adjudicated, leaving them unable to work legally even though their application is pending. Applicants need to verify when the rule takes effect, whether their specific category is covered, and whether any transitional protections apply during the rollout. The PERM Takeaway: This is the story that should have every PERM employer's full attention this week. The automatic extension was the mechanism that kept sponsored employees working through USCIS processing delays. Without it, an employee whose EAD expires before the renewal is approved faces a work authorization gap, and the employer faces an I-9 compliance problem. You cannot let someone keep working if their employment authorization has lapsed, regardless of whether a renewal is pending. For employers with sponsored workers on EAD-based authorization, the immediate action is to audit every pending renewal and build a timeline that accounts for current processing speeds without the extension cushion. File renewals as early as the filing window allows. If processing times exceed that window, you need a contingency plan for the gap period, which may include the employee taking unpaid leave or shifting to a different authorization basis if one is available. Counsel should be flagging every case where the extension was part of the compliance strategy, because that strategy just broke. Judge Orders State Department to Reopen Diversity Visa Lottery A federal judge ordered the State Department to reopen registration for the delayed 2027 Diversity Visa lottery, which makes up to 55,000 green cards available annually to nationals of countries with historically low immigration rates to the United States. The October 14 ruling requires the government to provide at least a 30-day registration window after it failed to open the program on schedule. As of last week, registration had not yet launched and the State Department had not announced official dates. Applicants should monitor the official lottery website for updates. The PERM Takeaway: The Diversity Visa operates on a separate track from employer-sponsored immigration, but it matters to PERM employers for a practical reason: employees in your workforce who are nationals of eligible countries may have an independent path to a green card through the lottery. If that path succeeds, it removes the need for employer sponsorship entirely, which saves the company time and money. Employers should be aware that the registration window, once announced, will be at least 30 days, and eligible employees may want to apply. The bigger signal here is that the administration delayed the program and had to be forced by a court to reopen it. That pattern of agency resistance followed by judicial intervention is playing out across multiple immigration programs right now. Employers should expect continued volatility in program availability and plan their sponsorship strategies with that uncertainty built in. Medicaid Changes Leave Some Legal Immigrants Without Health Coverage Medicaid eligibility changes that took effect October 1 are removing health insurance coverage for some lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and other groups who previously qualified. Families that relied on Medicaid for routine medical care and prescriptions are facing gaps in coverage. Eligibility depends on immigration status and state-level rules, so the impact varies by location. Affected individuals need to check their state's current eligibility criteria and explore alternative coverage options. The PERM Takeaway: This connects directly to the public charge rule that went live last month. USCIS officers now have broader discretion to consider an applicant's use of means-tested benefits, including Medicaid, when evaluating green card applications. Losing Medicaid coverage may actually reduce one risk factor in the public charge analysis, but it creates a different problem: an uninsured employee is a less stable employee. For PERM employers, the strongest move is making sure your benefits package fills the gap. Company-provided health insurance that covers sponsored workers and their families serves two purposes. It keeps your workforce healthy and productive, and it weighs positively in the public charge assessment by showing the employee does not need to rely on government programs. If your sponsored employees were previously covered by Medicaid and now face a gap, that is a conversation worth having with HR about whether your employer plan can absorb them and their dependents. U.S. Embassy and Consulate Operations Remain Uneven for October Boundless has updated its global tracker of U.S. embassy and consulate operations for October 2026. Visa services, appointment availability, and processing timelines continue to vary widely by location. Embassy operations shift based on security concerns, staffing shortages, and local conditions, all of which can disrupt scheduled visa appointments and slow processing. Travelers and visa applicants should verify the status of their local post before making plans. The PERM Takeaway: Consular processing remains unpredictable, and that unpredictability is a planning variable for every PERM employer with a sponsored worker who needs an immigrant visa interview abroad. If your employee's interview is scheduled at a post with known delays or service disruptions, explore whether a transfer to a faster post is feasible. The adjustment of status pathway, where available, avoids the consular bottleneck entirely and keeps the employee in the U.S. during processing. For cases where consular processing is the only option, build extra lead time into the timeline and monitor post-specific updates regularly rather than assuming the appointment will proceed on schedule. Federal Judge Blocks DOJ Effort to Access State Voter Records A federal judge ruled against the Justice Department's effort to obtain state voter registration records as part of an initiative to identify potentially ineligible voters. The administration had sought to cross-reference voter data with federal immigration records to flag noncitizens who may be registered to vote. The ruling blocks that effort and raises questions about the government's authority to access and use state election data for immigration enforcement purposes. The PERM Takeaway: The intersection of immigration records and voter data is a politically charged topic, but for PERM employers the concern is more practical. Any federal initiative that increases cross-referencing of immigration databases with other government records expands the potential for scrutiny of individual immigration histories. While this particular effort was blocked, the administration's interest in using immigration data for purposes beyond traditional immigration enforcement is a trend worth watching. Employers should ensure that every sponsored employee's immigration record is clean, consistent, and well-documented, because the number of databases and agencies that might look at that record continues to grow. Supreme Court to Hear Major Immigration Cases This Term The Supreme Court is taking up several significant immigration cases during its new term, including challenges to the Trump administration's detention and deportation policies. The justices will consider questions about the government's authority to detain immigrants and deport individuals to countries other than their own. Decisions are expected by June 2027, and the outcomes could reshape enforcement authority, due process protections, and the legal boundaries of presidential power over immigration. The PERM Takeaway: Supreme Court immigration decisions set the rules that every other agency and court operates under. The cases on this term's docket deal primarily with enforcement and deportation authority, but rulings that expand executive power over immigration tend to ripple outward. A decision that gives the administration broader detention authority could change the risk calculus for employees who fall out of status, even briefly. A ruling on deportation to third countries could affect how employees and their counsel evaluate worst-case scenarios during sponsorship. These decisions are months away, but employers and counsel should be tracking the oral arguments and early signals from the Court. By the time a ruling drops, the employers who followed the case will be ready to adjust. The ones who did not will be reacting. Stay sharp, stay compliant, and we'll see you next week.

Microsoft, Adobe Among Eight Employers Suspended From the Green Card Program The Department of Labor has suspended Microsoft, Adobe, and six IT staffing firms from the PERM labor certification program. New applications from these companies are blocked, and pending cases are reportedly on hold. DOL cited federal investigations and concerns about companies hiring foreign workers while conducting layoffs of U.S. employees. No end date for the suspensions has been announced. The action does not affect other employers, and sponsored employees at the suspended companies retain their existing work authorization. The PERM Takeaway: This is the most significant enforcement action against the PERM program in years, and it landed on two of the biggest names in tech. The message from DOL is direct: if your company is sponsoring foreign workers through PERM while simultaneously laying off U.S. workers in comparable roles, your labor certification program is at risk. This tracks with the executive order signed last month requiring agencies to factor layoff history into H-1B reviews. The enforcement posture is consistent, and it is escalating. For employers outside the suspended group, the lesson is immediate. Audit your own PERM pipeline against any workforce reductions from the past 12 months. If there is overlap between laid-off positions and roles you are certifying through PERM, document the distinctions in duties, qualifications, and geography now. DOL has shown it will act without warning and without a defined timeline for reinstatement. Employers who assume this enforcement wave stops at eight companies are making a bet they may not want to be on the wrong side of. DHS Proposes $70,000 Fee for Student Work Program DHS has proposed charging schools $70,000 for a student's first Optional Practical Training recommendation after the rule takes effect, with $30,000 for each subsequent recommendation. OPT allows eligible F-1 students to work in their field of study after graduation, and a STEM extension adds additional time. Under this proposal, a student pursuing both OPT and a STEM extension could trigger $100,000 in combined fees. Schools would be allowed to pass those costs to students or employers. The proposal does not change current work authorization rules, and public comments are open until November 9. The PERM Takeaway: OPT is the on-ramp to employer-sponsored immigration for a huge share of the foreign-born workforce. A $70,000 fee on the first recommendation would reshape the pipeline that feeds PERM cases. If schools pass the cost to students, fewer international graduates will pursue OPT, and the pool of candidates available to employers shrinks. If employers absorb the cost, the total price of developing a foreign worker from campus hire to green card holder jumps dramatically. Either way, the economics of the student-to-sponsored-worker pipeline change in a fundamental way. This is a proposed rule, not a final one, and the comment period runs through November 9. Employers who recruit heavily from university programs should be paying close attention to this proposal and making their position known during the comment window. If the rule takes effect as written, companies that built their talent strategy around campus recruiting and OPT will need to recalculate the cost of that pipeline from the ground up. USCIS Updates Guidance on Citizenship Neighborhood Checks USCIS has issued updated guidance on neighborhood investigations for naturalization applicants. The checks, which the agency resumed in 2025, may include interviews with an applicant's neighbors, coworkers, or employers. Not every applicant will be subject to one. Applicants can voluntarily submit character reference letters, preferably from U.S. citizens who are not relatives, to help USCIS determine whether to waive an investigation. Submitting letters does not guarantee a waiver. The guidance applies to naturalization applications that were pending or filed on or after August 25, 2026. The PERM Takeaway: Neighborhood checks sit at the end of the immigration journey rather than the beginning, but the reintroduction of this practice signals a broader shift toward more hands-on scrutiny at every stage. For PERM employers, the practical concern is what happens when a USCIS investigator shows up at your office to ask about a sponsored employee who is applying for citizenship. HR teams and supervisors need to know this is a possibility and understand that cooperation with the investigation is expected. Employers should also be aware that character reference letters from coworkers or supervisors could help their employee's case. If a sponsored worker who has reached the naturalization stage asks for a reference letter, that is a reasonable request, and providing one is straightforward. The broader takeaway is that USCIS is investing in verification at a level the agency had moved away from for years. Employers should expect that level of scrutiny to show up across other parts of the immigration process as well. Lawsuit Challenges USCIS Green Card Policies on Adjustment of Status A coalition of immigrants, unions, and advocacy groups has sued USCIS over two policies affecting green card applicants who file from within the United States. The first policy treats an applicant's choice to adjust status domestically, rather than processing through a consulate abroad, as a negative factor in the case. The second gives officers expanded discretion to deny applications without first issuing a request for evidence. The plaintiffs argue the policies risk separating families and disrupting employment, and have asked a federal court to block both. Both policies remain in effect while the case moves forward. The PERM Takeaway: Adjustment of status is the preferred filing path for most PERM-sponsored employees because it allows the worker to stay in the U.S. while the green card case is processed. A USCIS policy that treats choosing adjustment of status as a negative factor works directly against that preference and introduces a new variable into case strategy. If officers are weighing the domestic filing choice against applicants, counsel needs to build the case file with that in mind and ensure supporting documentation is strong enough to overcome that additional scrutiny. The second policy, allowing denials without first requesting evidence, removes a safety net that gave applicants a chance to correct deficiencies before a case was rejected. For employers, that means the initial filing has to be airtight. There is less room for a second chance if something is missing or unclear. Both policies remain in effect, and the lawsuit could take months to resolve. Plan filings as though these standards will be applied to your cases, because right now they are. Stay sharp, stay compliant, and we'll see you next week.

In this episode of Immigration Nerds, Erickson Immigration Group's Lauren Clark talks with Ariel Rolls, an attorney at Grossman Young & Hammond whose practice includes asylum and Interpol Red Notice work. Ariel chairs AILA DC's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee and organizes the AILA DC Belonging Book Club. Once a month on a Sunday, immigration lawyers and paralegals in the DC area meet for lunch to talk about a book they've all read, at a restaurant chosen to match it. Ariel drives a couple of hours from central Virginia each month to be there. The lunch gives them a break from the work, spent with people who already understand it. Meet the Belonging Book Club The club started in September 2024. At a DEI committee meeting on Zoom, then-member Savannah Anick mentioned she had joined a book club in her town and asked whether the chapter could start one. According to Ariel, everyone on the call "just kind of lit up at the idea." Ariel says the point was to get away from the usual after-work format. Happy hours and networking events have their place, but this would meet "in the daylight," centered on real conversation and not on trading contacts or decompressing after a long day. The committee chose the name on purpose. Its email address is belonging@ailadc.com, and Ariel says the word shapes what they're building. Inclusion gets someone a seat at the table. Belonging means they feel their presence is valued once they sit down. Why the Food Matters Pairing each book with a restaurant began partly for practical reasons. The group needed somewhere to meet, and a restaurant was easier than a law firm conference room. When the club tried meeting at a firm and online, members said they wanted to go back to restaurants. Over time, the meal became central to the club. Ariel shared two afternoons that show why. At a Palestinian restaurant, a member who is an immigrant herself ordered a milk-based drink that looked like one from her home country. She asked the staff to change it to match how she drank it back home, and they looked at her like she'd lost her mind. She drank it as they served it anyway, and the first sip took her straight back to her childhood. After the club read Dominicana by Angie Cruz, they went to Mecho's Dominican Kitchen in DC. It's a strip-mall spot with a mural on the wall and music playing. Ariel is vegetarian and didn't know what to order, so another member, Laura, pointed out a fish dish that Ana, the protagonist, cooks in the novel. In the book, Ana arrives from the Dominican Republic at 15. Food is her link to home, and later it gives her a way to earn money and some independence. Eating that dish while discussing her story, Ariel said, "it did feel like Ana was with us." Lessons From a 500-Page First Pick The club started with Jonathan Blitzer's Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here, a 500-page history of how U.S. policy in Central America helped create the crisis at the border. The kickoff lunch at El Tamarindo, a Salvadoran restaurant, was one of the club's best-attended meetings. The trouble came later. The group split the book across several months, and attendance dropped quickly. Ariel admitted it was "a bit hard to live inside one book for a couple months at a time." Longtime member Eva Morgenstern, who is on the EIG team, suggested switching to lighter reads. The club now reads one book per month, and members vote on every pick. The lineup has gone back and forth between fiction, memoir, and comedy, and includes Vietnamerica, GB Tran's memoir told as a graphic novel. Eva has also pointed out that fiction is easier to take on emotionally after a full day of practice than journalism is. Ariel mostly agrees, though she notes that a novel can sometimes hit harder than a memoir because it lets you inside the narrator's head. Some books have split the room. Dominicana drew strong reactions to how it portrays men and womanhood. The Ungrateful Refugee by Dina Nayeri lost some readers with its stream-of-consciousness style until other members explained why Nayeri chose it. Ariel says that's why the lunches work: "We're all reading the same book, but we come to it with different perspectives, and we also leave reading the book with different perspectives." From the Lunch Table to the Client Meeting Lauren asked whether the books change how Ariel works with clients. Ariel, who is the child of immigrants, said yes. Fiction and memoir show her reasons people migrate that she hadn't known about, often specific to a region. Her clearest example was All This Could Be Different by Sarah Thankam Mathews. The narrator is an Indian immigrant whose employer sponsors her visa. From the outside it looks like a fair deal. Told from her perspective, it reads as a steady loss of freedom. Ariel says she brings that perspective into client conversations now. She doesn't claim to know everything, but conversations are more open because she understands more about what clients may be living through. How to Join The club has about 50 members on its online platform, and a core group of six to eight attend most months. Ariel holds the meeting as long as three or four people come. Attendees include attorneys from nonprofits, private firms, and solo practices, along with paralegals and affiliated members. You can find the club on bookclubs.com or email belonging@ailadc.com. The October pick was Jimmy O. Yang's How to American: An Immigrant's Guide to Disappointing Your Parents, chosen after a heavier novel the month before. When Ariel misheard the title and searched for it at the table, Google offered her advice on how to disappoint your immigrant parents. Quote Highlight Standout advice: Ariel's message to colleagues who love the work but are running on empty is to show up, even if they're unprepared: "Please come along. Please come even if you haven't read the book, even if you don't know what we're gonna be talking about. We will welcome you in with open arms." A quote that resonates: Her explanation of why the club is called Belonging: "We didn't just want everyone to have a seat at the table... we wanted everyone to feel like their presence is valued, like they truly do belong, like we are a community." Call to Action If this conversation reminded you why you got into immigration work, subscribe to Immigration Nerds wherever you get your podcasts, and follow EIG's updates at eiglaw.com. Each episode promises to enrich your understanding and keep you informed about the ever-evolving landscape of immigration policies. If you're in the DC area, or willing to drive like Ariel, email belonging@ailadc.com and save yourself a seat.

October Visa Bulletin Opens FY2027 With Retrogression for Most Countries The October Visa Bulletin launched fiscal year 2027 with a mixed bag. Several China employment-based categories moved forward, and India's previously unavailable EB-2 and EB-5 categories reopened. EB-4 advanced by more than two years. But the headline for most applicants is bad news: EB-2 and EB-3 final action dates for the rest of the world moved backward. The State Department attributed the retrogression to the need to keep visa issuance within annual limits, calling it a cautious start to the new fiscal year. For applicants who watched their priority dates inch forward over the summer, October erased some of that progress. The PERM Takeaway: Retrogression in EB-2 and EB-3 at the start of a new fiscal year is a signal that demand for employment-based green cards is outpacing supply heading into FY2027. For PERM employers, this means longer waits between labor certification approval and the employee's ability to file for adjustment of status. That gap creates retention risk. An employee with an approved PERM case who sees their priority date slide backward has every reason to start weighing their options, especially if another employer is willing to start a fresh sponsorship in a category that is still current. Employers should be having honest conversations with sponsored workers about where their case stands and what the retrogression means for their personal timeline. On the positive side, the reopening of India EB-2 gives employers sponsoring Indian nationals in that category a window that did not exist last month. If you have approved I-140s in India EB-2 and the priority date is now current, counsel should be moving on adjustment filings before the window narrows again. USCIS Raises Immigration Fees Effective October 16 USCIS announced inflation-driven fee increases across several immigration categories, effective October 16. The asylum application fee rises from $102 to $105, the immigration parole fee goes from $1,020 to $1,050, certain initial employment authorization applications increase from $560 to $570, and Temporary Protected Status applications climb from $510 to $520. Applications postmarked on or after October 16 without the correct fee will be rejected. The PERM Takeaway: The dollar amounts on these specific increases are modest, but the compliance risk is real. A rejected filing because the check was written for $560 instead of $570 means a lost receipt date, a gap in work authorization, and potentially a scramble to refile. For employers managing multiple sponsored employees across different categories, the October 16 cutoff needs to be flagged in every active case file. HR and counsel should confirm that every application going out after that date carries the updated fee. If you have filings in the pipeline that could land on either side of October 16, verify the postmark timing and attach the right amount. The broader pattern is worth noting too. USCIS has been steadily adjusting fees upward, and the EB-5 increases coming in November show that trend accelerating. Employers should be budgeting for sponsorship costs to continue rising over the next fiscal year. Second Federal Court Blocks the $100,000 H-1B Fee A federal judge in California has struck down the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on certain new H-1B petitions, making this the second court to block the policy. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. found that immigration agencies failed to follow required rulemaking procedures when imposing the charge. The fee remains blocked, though the administration continues to defend it in court. Open questions remain about petitions that were affected while the fee was in place and whether employers who already paid will receive refunds. The PERM Takeaway: Two federal courts have now blocked this fee on procedural grounds, and the refund question is significant for employers who paid the $100,000 before the injunctions took hold. If your company submitted an H-1B petition with that fee attached, counsel should be tracking the refund developments closely. Beyond the immediate litigation, the pattern is clear: the administration wants this fee to exist and keeps extending and defending it. Even with two losses, a favorable appellate ruling could revive it. Employers who rely on consular processing for H-1B hires should continue treating the $100,000 fee as a cost that could return. The adjustment of status pathway avoids this fee entirely, and each court ruling reinforces why domestic filing deserves a prominent place in your sponsorship strategy. Citizenship Backlog Grows Past 727,000 Pending Applications The USCIS naturalization backlog reached more than 727,000 standard N-400 applications pending at the end of Q3 FY2026. The agency received nearly 146,000 applications during the quarter and completed roughly 70,500, meaning applications are arriving at more than double the rate they are being processed. The median processing time for non-military naturalization cases hit 9.5 months. The PERM Takeaway: A growing citizenship backlog does not directly affect PERM filings, but it tells you something about the agency's capacity. USCIS is processing naturalization applications at half the rate they come in, and that resource strain does not stay contained to one program. When the agency is stretched, processing times across categories tend to drift upward. Employers with sponsored employees waiting on I-485 adjudications, EAD renewals, or other USCIS-dependent filings should be building extra lead time into their planning. If your employee is approaching a work authorization expiration and relying on a timely USCIS decision, build the contingency plan now rather than assuming the agency will move on schedule. EB-5 Filing Fees Set to More Than Double Starting November 30 USCIS is significantly raising EB-5 program fees effective November 30. The filing fee for Form I-526E (regional center investors) jumps from $3,675 to $7,850. The standalone investor fee for Form I-526 rises from $3,675 to $7,615. And the Form I-829 fee to remove conditions on permanent residence increases from $3,750 to $5,000. USCIS says the new schedule is designed to cover the full cost of administering the program. The PERM Takeaway: EB-5 is a different sponsorship track than the PERM-based employment categories, but the fee increases matter for employers and investors evaluating their green card options. A doubling of the I-526E filing fee raises the total cost of the EB-5 pathway and may push some applicants to reconsider employment-based sponsorship through PERM as the more cost-effective route. For immigration counsel advising clients who are weighing EB-5 against employer sponsorship, the math just shifted. The November 30 deadline also creates a rush window. Expect a wave of EB-5 filings in October and November from applicants trying to lock in the current fee, which could further strain USCIS processing capacity heading into the new year. Stay sharp, stay compliant, and we'll see you next week.

Trump Orders New H-1B Scrutiny for Employers With Recent Layoffs President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to factor an employer's recent and planned layoffs into H-1B case reviews. The policy reaches across the entire H-1B lifecycle: labor condition applications, petitions, visa applications, and admission at the border. Agencies must now consider whether a sponsoring employer directly or indirectly conducted layoffs within the past year, plans future reductions, or has layoffs that negatively affected "similarly situated" U.S. workers. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division has 30 days to begin reviewing data from previously filed LCAs, which means existing filings are also on the table. Implementation guidance has not been released, and the administration has not defined how agencies will determine whether U.S. workers are "similarly situated" to a sponsored H-1B employee. The PERM Takeaway: The PERM process already requires employers to prove that no qualified U.S. worker is available for the sponsored role. This executive order adds a second layer: even if the recruitment test is clean, agencies can now look at whether the company laid off people in comparable positions within the past year. That creates real exposure for employers who went through workforce reductions and are now sponsoring foreign workers in the same or adjacent job categories. Until the agencies define "similarly situated," the safe assumption is that the standard will be read broadly. If your company cut headcount in the last 12 months, counsel should be mapping every affected position against every active H-1B and PERM filing. Build a documented record showing the differences in duties, qualifications, department, and geography between laid-off roles and sponsored positions. The retroactive LCA review is the part that should keep compliance teams up at night. Applications filed months ago under the old standard could face new scrutiny. Get ahead of that audit before it arrives. $100,000 H-1B Fee Extended Through 2027, Still Blocked by Courts Trump extended the administration's policy requiring a $100,000 payment for certain H-1B petitions involving workers outside the United States. The extension runs through September 21, 2027. The fee is not being collected. A federal judge ruled it unlawful in June, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reinstate it while the government appeals. USCIS confirmed it would comply with the court order and stop collecting the payment. The proclamation keeps the policy alive on paper without overriding the injunction. The PERM Takeaway: The fee is blocked, but the extension signals the administration plans to enforce it the moment the courts allow it. If the government wins its appeal, that $100,000 charge snaps back for H-1B petitions filed from outside the U.S. Employers who use consular processing as their default pathway should be running the numbers on what that fee does to their per-hire sponsorship costs. For PERM cases where the employee will eventually need an H-1B filing from abroad, this cost variable needs to be part of the planning conversation now, not after a ruling drops. Adjustment of status within the U.S. avoids this fee entirely, which makes the domestic filing path look more attractive with each extension. State Department Expands Social Media Vetting to More Visa Categories Starting October 1, the State Department is expanding its social media screening requirements to additional visa categories. Applicants for I visas (foreign media representatives) and TN/TD visas (USMCA professionals and their dependents) will now be instructed to set all social media profiles to "public" or "open" for review. This type of screening already covers a wide range of categories, including F, J, H-1B, H-4, and K visas. The expansion continues a broader push to incorporate online presence reviews into the standard visa vetting process. The PERM Takeaway: Social media vetting is now a standard part of the visa process for most employment-based categories, and the addition of TN visas brings USMCA professionals into the same screening framework as H-1B holders. Employers should make sure sponsored employees understand that consular officers will be reviewing their public social media profiles as part of the visa application. This is a conversation that needs to happen before the employee walks into the interview, not after a case gets flagged. Counsel should be advising sponsored workers to review their own profiles for anything that could raise questions or create delays. The expansion to I visas also matters for companies that bring foreign media professionals into the U.S. for assignments. Every new category added to the screening list makes social media review a more embedded part of immigration compliance rather than an edge case. USCIS Changes How It Handles Filing Deadlines That Fall on Weekends USCIS announced a policy change to how it treats immigration filing deadlines that land on weekends or federal holidays. Starting October 23, the agency will still allow some paper filings due within a specified number of days to arrive on the next business day. But the extension no longer applies to eligibility deadlines tied to a specific event, such as an applicant reaching a certain age. If the cutoff is event-based, the filing must reach USCIS before the eligibility window closes, regardless of whether that date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. The PERM Takeaway: This is the kind of procedural change that creates real problems if it catches an employer off guard. For PERM-related filings and adjustment of status cases, any deadline tied to an aging-out date, a visa bulletin cutoff, or another event-triggered eligibility window no longer gets a weekend buffer. If the deadline falls on a Sunday, the filing needs to be received before that Sunday. Counsel and HR teams should be reviewing every pending case with an event-based deadline and adjusting their internal timelines accordingly. The October 23 effective date gives employers about a month to update their processes. Build in earlier submission targets for anything with an eligibility clock, and do not assume the next-business-day grace period will save a weekend filing. Stay sharp, stay compliant, and we'll see you next week.

On September 18, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security's revised public charge framework took effect. Green card applicants filing from that date forward face a wider review of their use of public benefits, and immigration officers have more room to weigh each applicant's circumstances as they see fit. The rule has prompted plenty of confusion, especially around which benefits count and who is affected. Below, we answer the questions we're hearing most often from employers, counsel and their clients. The Basics What is the public charge rule? U.S. immigration law allows the government to deny admission or permanent residence to anyone officials believe is likely to become primarily dependent on government support at any point in the future. That determination is called a public charge finding. Federal law directs officers to weigh a set of statutory factors when making it: the applicant's age, health, family status, financial resources and assets, and education and skills. In most family-based cases, officers also review a sponsor's Affidavit of Support. What changed on September 18, 2026? DHS finalized a rule, published in the Federal Register on July 20, that rescinds the public charge regulation in place since December 2022. Under the 2022 rule, officers could generally consider only two kinds of benefits: cash assistance for income maintenance (such as SSI or TANF) and long-term institutional care paid for by the government. That limit is gone. DHS chose to implement the new standard through policy guidance rather than a replacement regulation, which gives USCIS officers broad discretion to review an applicant's full circumstances, including whether they applied for, were approved for, or received means-tested public benefits. Which Benefits Count What benefits can USCIS consider now? DHS has not published a complete list. It has indicated that the broader review can reach means-tested programs the 2022 rule excluded, including: Medicaid SNAP (food stamps) CHIP Means-tested housing assistance Other federal, state, local, Tribal or territorial means-tested programs Benefit use is one factor in a larger analysis. Receiving Medicaid, SNAP or housing help does not by itself make someone inadmissible. Does applying for a benefit count, even if I never got it? It can. The new policy lets officers look at applications for benefits and approvals or certifications, in addition to benefits actually received. That is a meaningfully wider window than the 2022 rule allowed. Do benefits I received before September 18 count against me? Generally no. The expanded review is not retroactive. Benefits that were excluded under the 2022 rule are only considered if the applicant applied for, was approved for, or received them on or after September 18, 2026. Anything before that date is generally judged under the older, narrower standard. Family Members and Household Benefits My child receives Medicaid. Does that count against me? Generally no. Benefits received by a child, spouse or other household member are not treated as benefits received by the applicant. A U.S. citizen child enrolled in Medicaid does not make their immigrant parent a Medicaid recipient for public charge purposes. That said, a household member's benefits can sometimes shed light on the family's overall financial picture. Applicants with mixed-status households should get case-specific legal advice before filing. Who the Rule Applies To Does public charge apply to employment-based green cards? Yes. Employment-based adjustment applicants, including those who completed PERM labor certification and have an approved I-140, are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Most employment-based applicants do not need to file Form I-864, Affidavit of Support. The main exception is when the I-140 is filed by a relative, or by a company in which a relative holds a 5% or greater ownership interest. In those cases, the relative must submit an Affidavit of Support. For employers, the practical takeaway is that a sponsored employee's job offer, salary and skills weigh in their favor under the totality-of-circumstances review. Counsel may want to confirm that the offered wage and position details are well documented in the adjustment filing. Does it apply to marriage-based and other family green cards? Generally yes. Marriage-based applicants are subject to public charge, and the sponsoring spouse typically must file Form I-864 showing they meet the income or asset threshold. If my sponsor submits an Affidavit of Support, am I exempt? No. A sufficient I-864 carries weight, but officers still review the other statutory factors. If a sponsor falls short of the income requirement, a joint sponsor or qualifying household member may be able to help, though the petitioner usually still files their own affidavit. Who is exempt? Federal law exempts a number of humanitarian categories from the public charge test, including: Refugees and asylees Certain Special Immigrant Juveniles Certain trafficking victims (T visa applicants) Certain crime victims (U visa applicants) Certain VAWA self-petitioners Other exemptions exist. Whether the test applies depends on the applicant's category and facts. Does it apply to people applying from abroad? Yes, but the State Department makes that decision in consular cases, using its own guidance. Consular officers weigh the same statutory factors and, in family-based cases, the Affidavit of Support. In August 2026, the State Department began a pilot program using public charge bonds for select immigrant visa applicants found inadmissible on public charge grounds. Applicants should not pursue a bond unless a consular officer tells them to. Bond amounts are set case by case. Does it affect naturalization? No. Public charge is not part of the citizenship test, and the new rule leaves naturalization eligibility untouched. Separate, limited deportability provisions exist, but they work differently from the admission and adjustment test. Filing and Pending Cases Is there a new Form I-485? Yes. USCIS issued a revised Form I-485 alongside the rule. It asks for broader information about applications for, approvals of, and receipt of means-tested benefits. Anyone filing on or after September 18 should use the current edition and the latest instructions. What if I filed before September 18? Adjustment applications postmarked or electronically submitted before September 18, 2026 generally stay under the 2022 framework, even if USCIS decides them later. Legal Challenges Is the rule being challenged in court? Yes. In mid-September, a coalition of states and the District of Columbia sued to block the rule, and a separate group of cities and counties, including New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle, filed its own challenge. Plaintiffs argue the policy violates federal administrative law and hands officers excessive discretion. The federal government is defending the rule. As of now, the lawsuits have not stopped the rule from taking effect. We'll update this page if a court changes that. What Should Applicants and Employers Do Now? Don't drop benefits on reflex. Whether a benefit could affect a case depends on who received it, what type it is, when it was received, and the applicant's immigration category. Families should talk to an immigration attorney before giving up support they're eligible for. Use the current I-485. Filings on outdated editions risk rejection. Document the full picture. Under a totality-of-circumstances review, strong evidence of employment, income, education and health carries more weight than before. For employment-based cases, that means a clean paper trail from PERM through the I-140. Watch the litigation. Court rulings could change how or when the rule applies. This article is for general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific situation. Sources: Fragomen – DHS Replaces Public Charge Regulation with Policy Guidance SW Law Group – DHS's New Public Charge Rule Takes Effect September 18, 2026 Lauren Jo Law – Major Changes to the Public Charge Rules Babylon Radio – US public charge rule changes on 18 September

On September 18, President Trump signed an executive order that ties an employer's workforce reductions directly to its H-1B sponsorship. The same day, a separate proclamation extended the administration's $100,000 H-1B payment policy for another year, even though a federal court has that fee on hold. Neither move comes with detailed implementation guidance yet, but both deserve attention from any employer with a foreign national hiring pipeline. Layoffs Now Factor Into H-1B Reviews The order instructs the Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department to weigh an employer's layoff history when they review H-1B cases. That review reaches every stage of the process: the labor condition application, the petition itself, the visa application at a consulate, and admission at the border. Agencies are directed to look at whether the sponsoring company has cut jobs, directly or indirectly, within the past year, and whether it has reductions planned. The focus is on layoffs that hurt U.S. workers who are "similarly situated" to the H-1B employee. That phrase carries a lot of weight, and the administration has not defined it. A company-wide reduction does not automatically disqualify an employer from sponsoring, but nobody yet knows how narrowly or broadly agencies will draw the comparison. The order also pulls more agencies into the process. Commerce, Education, and the Small Business Administration will supply wage, employment, academic, and industry data to support H-1B reviews. Boundless CEO Xiao Wang pointed to the practical problem for large employers: if a company cuts warehouse staff in one city, it is unclear whether that should affect its ability to hire H-1B software engineers somewhere else entirely. PERM Takeaway: Employers who sponsor green cards already know this territory. PERM regulations require employers who had layoffs in the area of intended employment, in the same or a related occupation, within six months of filing to notify and consider those laid-off workers. The new order pushes a similar layoff lens onto H-1B, with a longer lookback and far less definition. Since most PERM cases begin with an H-1B worker, employers should start mapping their layoffs by role, location, and duties now, so they can answer questions consistently at both the H-1B and PERM stages. DOL Will Look Back at LCAs Already Filed This order does not stop at new filings. Within 30 days, DOL's Wage and Hour Division must begin reviewing data from previously submitted LCAs to decide whether further action against sponsoring employers is warranted. The scope of those reviews has not been announced, but the direction points toward more enforcement activity. The $100,000 Fee: Extended on Paper, Still Blocked in Court The second action on September 18 was a proclamation extending the $100,000 payment requirement for certain H-1B petitions involving workers outside the United States. The policy now runs through September 21, 2027. In practice, nothing changes for the moment. A federal district court found the policy unlawful in June. On July 24, the First Circuit refused the government's request to keep the fee in place during its appeal, and USCIS has stopped collecting the payment while the case continues. The proclamation keeps the policy alive on paper, but it does not revive the fee while the court order stands. PERM Takeaway: Employers weighing whether to bring talent in from abroad or sponsor workers already in the U.S. should keep watching the appeal. If the fee is ever reinstated, the cost difference between those paths grows sharply, and long-term sponsorship planning, including when to start PERM for current H-1B employees, becomes even more important. What Comes Next Agencies are expected to release guidance explaining how the layoff review will work, including what counts as a similarly situated worker and what employers will need to submit. Open questions remain about whether the new review will slow processing times or trigger more requests for evidence. DOL's lookback on existing LCAs must begin within 30 days of the order. Employers with recent or planned layoffs should review upcoming H-1B and PERM filings with immigration counsel, with special attention to cases where the reductions touched roles similar to the ones they plan to sponsor.