At the October 8 announcement led by Vice President JD Vance, administration officials identified Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, HCL Technologies and Capgemini. Vance singled out Microsoft in his remarks. Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling said the Department of Labor would neither accept new permanent labor certification applications nor process pending applications involving the named companies. No public finding establishes that every named employer violated immigration law. The government should disclose the legal basis, evidence and procedures supporting a measure with such broad consequences.
PERM is the Department of Labor process through which an employer generally must test the U.S. labor market and show that there are no able, willing, qualified and available U.S. workers for the offered position, and that employing the foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. It is usually the first major step in an employer-sponsored permanent residence case.
The workers most likely to be affected are employees pursuing the standard employer-sponsored EB-2 or EB-3 process through one of the suspended companies. Both categories commonly depend on an approved PERM labor certification before the employer files Form I-140 with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. If the Department of Labor will not accept a new filing or continue a pending one, the case may be unable to advance through that route.
The interruption may be especially serious for employees who have spent years waiting for an employer to start recruitment, who are approaching limits tied to temporary work status, or whose long-term plans depend on securing a priority date. The precise result will depend on where each case stands. A pending PERM application, an approved labor certification and a filed or approved I-140 petition are legally different postures. Existing H-1B status and previously issued green cards are not automatically cancelled by a PERM suspension.
It is also important to use the label EB-2 carefully. The standard employer-sponsored EB-2 route generally uses PERM. An EB-2 National Interest Waiver case does not. Treating all EB-2 cases as if they face the same restriction would give workers the wrong picture of their options.
Two important employment-based categories remain legally available because they do not require the PERM process: EB-2 National Interest Waiver and EB-1A extraordinary ability. In an NIW case, a qualified person asks USCIS to waive the job-offer and labor-certification requirements because the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance and because, on balance, the United States would benefit from the waiver. In an EB-1A case, a person of extraordinary ability may self-petition without a permanent job offer or labor certification.
These routes are not loopholes, and they are not automatic substitutes for employer sponsorship. Congress and the immigration regulations created them for applicants who can satisfy distinct and demanding standards. An engineer, researcher, entrepreneur or business professional does not qualify merely because a PERM case has been delayed. The applicant must still prove eligibility with a carefully documented record, and approval of an immigrant petition does not eliminate visa-number backlogs or the other requirements for permanent residence.
Still, the legal structure matters. Unless the government announces a separate restriction, the reported company-specific PERM suspension does not prevent an eligible person from filing an EB-2 NIW or EB-1A petition. Those categories are adjudicated by USCIS on their own statutory criteria, rather than on a labor certification issued to a sponsoring employer.
The government has a legitimate responsibility to investigate fraud and enforce recruitment and wage rules. Employers should not be permitted to manipulate job requirements, conduct sham recruitment or use immigration programs to depress wages. But enforcement should be evidence-based, transparent and proportionate. A suspension that stops both new and pending cases can impose immediate costs on employees who did not control their employer's recruitment practices and may have complied with every requirement asked of them.
The debate also should not reduce skilled immigrants to a labor-cost argument. The employment-based system contains safeguards for U.S. workers, but it also gives the country tools to retain people whose work advances research, technology, health care, business and other areas of national importance. PERM, NIW and EB-1A serve different policy purposes. Conflating them makes for a forceful headline but poor immigration policy.
For employees at Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, HCL Technologies and Capgemini, the practical advice is to identify the exact stage and legal basis of the case before drawing conclusions. A PERM-based EB-2 or EB-3 strategy may now face a significant barrier. An EB-2 NIW or EB-1A strategy may remain open for a person who independently meets the standard. Each option requires an individual legal assessment.
The administration's action may change how major employers sponsor permanent residence. It does not rewrite the eligibility rules for every employment-based category. Workers, employers and policymakers should insist on that precision as the legal and political debate continues.
If your PERM case may be affected, or you want to explore whether EB-2 NIW or EB-1A could be available based on your profile, request a consultation with the Beyond Border immigration team. We can review your circumstances, explain the available pathways and help you determine the appropriate next step.
Address: 4 W 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94402, United States
Email: info@beyondborderglobal.com
