The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has announced the immediate suspension of eight technology and IT services companies—Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, HCL, and Capgemini—from the Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) program.
Vice President JD Vance and Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling announced the suspensions at an October 8 press conference. Sonderling said the Department of Labor suspended Microsoft and Adobe because of multiple active federal investigations. For the six IT services firms, officials cited the sheer volume of their permanent labor certifications — reportedly more than 100,000 since 2009. Vance pointed to Microsoft’s layoffs of U.S. workers while it continued sponsoring H-1B and green card cases.
This suspension applies only to the PERM process, the mandatory first step for sponsoring employment-based green cards, and does not ban temporary H-1B visas, allowing affected employees to maintain their current nonimmigrant work status.
DOL has not issued formal written guidance, named an end date, or described a path to reinstatement. It is also unclear how the DOL will treat already-certified cases and pending or approved I-140 petitions.
This move followed the Trump administration’s proposal to change the other end of the corporate immigration pipeline in the U.S.: a $70,000 fee for initial Optional Practical Training (OPT) and a $30,000 fee for STEM OPT extensions.
It also intersects with a critical May 2026 policy shift that recasts adjustment of status (AOS) as a discretionary, extraordinary form of relief rather than a routine filing. That shift could complicate the transition to the EB-5 investor visa.
The central problem: what the May AOS memo actually does
USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, issued May 21, 2026, does not bar, prohibit, or prevent anyone from filing Form I-485 inside the United States.
However, it reframes adjustment of status as a discretionary, extraordinary form of relief rather than something close to an entitlement, and directs officers to weigh the totality of circumstances, with failure to pursue consular processing counting as a negative factor. Approval becomes harder and less predictable. Filing remains legal and available.
The draft states the opposite in three places:
USCIS has signaled that many nonimmigrants, including dual-intent H-1B and L-1 holders, should expect adjustment applications to be viewed unfavorably and may be steered toward consular processing abroad.
Because approval is now discretionary, the employment authorization that concurrent filing produces is less dependable than it was—but concurrent filing itself remains available under the Reform and Integrity Act, and the EB-5 reserved categories remain current.
As a result, an EB-5 concurrent filing is a less certain bridge than it was a year ago, though it has not been foreclosed.
Both ends of the pipeline
The traditional path to U.S. permanent residency has long been a predictable sequence: F-1 student visa → OPT → H-1B work visa → PERM employment-based green card. The administration’s recent policies affect both ends of this pipeline:
- The Entry Barrier (OPT Fees): The proposed DHS rule requires SEVP-certified educational institutions to pay $70,000 upfront for initial OPT and $30,000 for STEM extensions. Because colleges will likely pass these costs down to hiring companies, it will become significantly less affordable for corporations to recruit international graduates for entry-level roles.
- The Exit Barrier (PERM Freeze): For those who successfully obtained an H-1B visa, the first step to a green card is blocked. By suspending these eight major U.S. employers, DOL has halted new and pending PERM filings. Workers whose labor certifications were already approved, or who have I-140 petitions on file, are in a less clear position—the department has not said how it will handle those cases.
Human resources departments at the affected firms lose the green card as a retention tool, which immigration practitioners expect to accelerate attrition among high-skilled foreign workers.
New litigation
A coalition including the American Association of University Professors, labor unions whose members include noncitizens, individual applicants, and a legal services provider sued over the policy on October 5 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The suit, American Association of University Professors v. Mullin, No. 1:26-cv-14527, challenges both the May memo and an August 2026 policy directing officers to deny applications without first requesting missing evidence. The American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association are counsel. The policies remain in effect while the case proceeds.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are solely the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher, its employees. or its affiliates. The information found on this website is intended to be general information; it is not legal or financial advice. Specific legal or financial advice can only be given by a licensed professional with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances of your particular situation. You should seek consultation with legal, immigration, and financial experts prior to participating in the EB-5 program Posting a question on this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. All questions you post will be available to the public; do not include confidential information in your question.
