U.S. Labor Department Suspends Eight Major Technology Companies from PERM Green Card Program
Breaking: Eight companies suspended from PERM:
The U.S. Department of Labor on Thursday suspended eight major technology and IT services companies from the Permanent Labor Certification Program (PERM), the mandatory first step for most EB-2 and EB-3 green cards. DOL will not accept new PERM applications from these employers and will not process applications already pending.
The companies named are:
- Cognizant
- Infosys
- Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)
- Wipro
- HCL Technologies
- Capgemini
- Microsoft
- Adobe
Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling made the announcement alongside Vice President JD Vance, who heads the administration’s Anti-Fraud Task Force, with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller also present. Sonderling identified the first six as among the world’s largest IT outsourcing firms; Microsoft and Adobe were added with DOL citing multiple active federal investigations.
According to figures Sonderling presented, since 2009 the eight companies collectively requested nearly three million foreign workers, received more than 230,000 H-1B approvals, and obtained more than 100,000 permanent labor certifications. He characterized these as jobs taken from American workers. Vance directed a message at Microsoft, saying it is a great American company but must hire American workers.
Microsoft responded that it develops its U.S. workforce while attracting global talent. The other companies had not all publicly responded at the time of writing. The announcement did not state how long the suspensions will last or how a company may seek reinstatement.
Why this matters:
PERM labor certification is the gateway to most employment-based green cards. Before an employer can file an I-140 immigrant petition in the EB-2 or EB-3 category, it must conduct a recruitment campaign and prove to DOL that no qualified, willing and available U.S. worker applied for the job, and that hiring the foreign worker will not depress wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
Suspending an employer from PERM therefore closes that employer’s pipeline to permanent residence for its sponsored workers. No new cases can start, and cases already in the DOL queue — many of them filed a year or more ago — stop moving.
The action is the latest in a series of measures tightening employment-based immigration and pressing employers to recruit domestically, following the $100,000 H-1B proclamation fee that the President recently extended while it faces a court challenge. It also signals heightened government interest in the link between corporate layoffs, H-1B employment, foreign-worker recruitment, and PERM filings.
Analysis: what is and is not affected:
The suspension reaches the PERM stage only. On what DOL announced, it does not cancel H-1B status, approved labor certifications, I-140 petitions, pending I-485 applications or green cards already issued. Here is where each stage stands.
Two cautions. First, the action came from a cross-agency Anti-Fraud Task Force, so follow-on USCIS scrutiny of these employers’ I-140 and H-1B filings — requests for evidence, site visits, notices of intent to revoke — is realistic. Second, DOL’s debarment regulation (20 CFR 656.31) ordinarily carries a one-to-three year term and a reinstatement path; the announcement invoked no term, so the duration is an open question.
Analysis: priority dates, H-1B extensions, and portability:
The practical damage depends on how far a worker had progressed before Thursday. Three rules decide whether a worker keeps what has been built or starts over.
Priority date retention. Once an I-140 has been approved for 180 days, the priority date belongs to the worker. It survives the employer’s withdrawal of the petition and the worker’s departure (8 CFR 204.5(e); 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C)). A new employer can file a fresh PERM and I-140 and recapture that date. Workers in this position lose little beyond time.
H-1B extensions beyond six years. AC21 §106(a) allows one-year extensions only if a PERM or I-140 was filed at least 365 days before the six-year limit; §104(c) allows three-year extensions only with an approved I-140 and a backlogged priority date. A worker whose PERM was never filed, or was filed less than 365 days ago, has no basis for extension past year six. For these workers the suspension is a countdown, not an inconvenience.
I-485 portability. A worker with an approved I-140 and an I-485 pending 180 days or more may change employers in the same or a similar occupation without restarting the process (INA 204(j); 8 CFR 245.25). The new employer need not file a PERM at all.
Indian nationals bear the heaviest impact. Because EB-2 and EB-3 India backlogs run a decade or longer, Indian professionals at these companies depend on early PERM and I-140 filings both to lock a priority date and to qualify for H-1B extensions while they wait. Those caught before filing face the real prospect of exhausting H-1B time with no path to remain.
What affected employees should do now:
Do not resign, change employers, withdraw any application, or make other major immigration decisions on the strength of this announcement alone. First establish exactly where your case stands.
- Confirm your stage. Ask your employer or immigration counsel whether a PERM has been filed, its filing date, whether it has been certified, whether an I-140 has been filed or approved (and when), and whether an I-485 is pending.
- Count your H-1B time. Calculate the months remaining before the six-year limit and whether you qualify for an AC21 extension. If you are within two years of the cap with no PERM filed, a new employer that can start PERM immediately may be the only way to preserve a path without leaving the U.S.
- If your I-140 has been approved for 180 days or more, your priority date is yours. A new employer can recapture it. Do not accept an employer’s suggestion to withdraw it.
- If your I-140 was approved less than 180 days ago, avoid any employer withdrawal until day 180 passes.
- If your I-485 has been pending 180 days or more, evaluate portability to a same-or-similar position under INA 204(j).
- Review every filing you sign. Heightened fraud scrutiny makes accuracy in job duties, worksites and end-client arrangements critical. If your actual work differs from what is on your LCA or petition, raise it with counsel before an investigator does.
- Keep records. Collect copies of your PERM filing confirmation, I-140 receipt and approval notices, pay stubs and current job description. You will need them for any move.
- Watch for guidance. DOL and USCIS have not yet said how long the suspensions last, how certified cases will be treated, or whether employers can seek reinstatement.
A major shift in employment-based enforcement:
The October 8 action is an unusually direct federal intervention in PERM, aimed at the largest users of high-skilled foreign labor in the United States. It treats program participation itself, not individual applications, as the lever.
Three questions will determine its real reach:
- Duration. Debarment under 20 CFR 656.31 runs one to three years with a reinstatement path. The announcement set no term.
- Certified cases. DOL said nothing about revoking approved labor certifications. Any such step would require case-specific findings.
- Challenge. The companies may have administrative and judicial avenues to contest the suspensions, and litigation is likely.
For thousands of foreign professionals — above all those in the Indian EB-2 and EB-3 queues — the most important step now is to determine exactly where their individual case stands and what the suspension means for their ability to remain and work in the United States.
The Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. is available to review individual cases.
DHS Proposes Stunning $70,000 OPT Fee — Major Changes Could Reshape International Student Employment in America
$70,000 for First OPT Recommendation and $30,000 for Subsequent OPT, Including STEM Extensions:
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has published a sweeping proposed regulation that could fundamentally change Optional Practical Training (OPT), one of the principal programs allowing F-1 international students graduating from American colleges and universities to obtain practical work experience in the United States.
Under the proposed rule, an institution certified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) would be required to pay:
$70,000 for an F-1 student’s initial OPT recommendation; and
$30,000 for each subsequent OPT recommendation after the initial fee has been paid.
The proposal applies to pre-completion OPT, post-completion OPT and subsequent OPT periods, including the 24-month STEM OPT extension.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2026, as “Optional Practical Training Fees,” 91 FR 64566, DHS Docket No. ICEB-2026-0100.
The Rule Is NOT Yet in Effect:
This point is extremely important for international students.
No $70,000 or $30,000 OPT fee is currently required.
DHS has issued a proposed rule—not a final rule.
Students currently applying for OPT or STEM OPT should therefore continue following the existing procedures unless and until DHS publishes a final regulation that becomes effective.
The public may submit comments on the proposal through November 9, 2026.
If DHS ultimately finalizes the regulation substantially as proposed, DHS proposes that it become effective 60 days after publication of the final rule.
Who Would Actually Pay the $70,000?
Technically, the proposed regulation places the payment obligation on the SEVP-certified educational institution, not directly on the F-1 student or a particular employer.
Before a Designated School Official (DSO) could recommend a student for OPT in SEVIS, the school would first have to ensure that the applicable fee had been paid.
But there is an extremely important qualification.
DHS expressly acknowledges in the proposed rule that educational institutions could potentially pass the financial obligation on to F-1 students, all students, or employers.
Therefore, although the regulation would formally require the university or school to make the payment, the economic cost could ultimately be borne by the international student or potentially an employer, depending upon how individual universities respond if the rule becomes final.
How the $70,000 and $30,000 Structure Would Work:
The first time an eligible F-1 student receives an OPT recommendation after the rule becomes effective, the SEVP-certified institution would generally have to pay $70,000.
Any subsequent OPT recommendation for that student, after the initial $70,000 fee has been paid, would generally trigger a $30,000 fee.
For example:
A student who first uses pre-completion OPT could trigger the initial $70,000 payment.
If that student later applies for post-completion OPT, the subsequent recommendation could trigger another $30,000.
If another qualifying subsequent OPT recommendation follows, the fee provisions could apply again.
A STEM OPT extension can constitute a subsequent OPT recommendation subject to the $30,000 fee.
Importantly, the fee is triggered by the school’s OPT recommendation—not simply by changing employers.
What About Students Already on OPT?
DHS proposes significant transition protections.
Under the proposed rule, a school would not be required to pay the new fee merely because a student is already working under previously approved OPT.
Likewise, the proposed fee would not apply where the student has already received the relevant DSO OPT recommendation before the effective date of the final rule.
However, if that student later seeks a subsequent OPT recommendation after the rule becomes effective—for example, a STEM OPT extension—the new fee structure could become relevant.
This makes the eventual effective date of any final regulation extremely important.
Why Is DHS Proposing Such Extraordinary Fees?
DHS states that the purpose is to combat fraud and abuse in OPT, strengthen the integrity of the immigration system and protect U.S. workers.
The government argues that OPT has grown substantially and that weaknesses in the existing system can allow fraudulent employment arrangements, including questionable employers and employment unrelated to a student’s actual academic field.
DHS also raises concerns that employers may have economic incentives to hire some F-1 workers rather than U.S. workers and argues that the proposed fees would discourage misuse of OPT.
The proposed rule reflects a fundamental policy shift: DHS would use a very substantial financial charge not simply to recover administrative processing costs, but also as a mechanism intended to deter what the agency views as misuse of the OPT program.
Could Universities Simply Refuse to Recommend OPT?
Potentially, yes.
Under the proposal, the school would have to decide whether to make the OPT recommendation and incur the corresponding financial obligation.
DHS specifically notes that DSOs are not required to recommend every F-1 student for OPT and suggests that institutions could elect not to pay the fee for particular students.
That could place universities in an extraordinarily difficult position.
Schools could have to determine whether to absorb tens of thousands of dollars per international graduate, pass the expense elsewhere, establish new institutional criteria for OPT recommendations, or substantially reduce their participation in OPT.
Could Students or Employers Ultimately Pay?
Potentially.
Although the regulatory payment obligation would be imposed on the educational institution, DHS acknowledges that schools could mitigate their financial impact by passing the obligation to:
- F-1 students;
- the school’s broader student population; or
- employers.
This distinction is critical.
It is therefore misleading to describe the proposal simply as a “$70,000 student fee.” Legally, the proposed fee would be imposed on the SEVP-certified institution. Economically, however, DHS itself recognizes that the cost could ultimately be shifted elsewhere.
Refunds Would Be Possible in Limited Circumstances:
The proposed regulation also creates a limited refund mechanism.
A school could request a refund where the student has not received the OPT Employment Authorization Document associated with the payment.
The DSO generally would have to remove the OPT recommendation from SEVIS before requesting the refund.
SEVP would consider refund requests on a case-by-case basis.
Once the student has received the applicable OPT employment authorization, however, the fee generally would not be refundable.
Potential Impact on U.S. Universities:
If finalized, the proposal could have enormous financial and competitive consequences for American universities.
International students frequently consider post-graduation practical training opportunities when deciding whether to pursue bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees in the United States.
A $70,000 financial barrier connected to initial OPT—and potentially additional $30,000 charges for subsequent OPT—could substantially change that calculation.
Universities with large international student populations could potentially face enormous aggregate costs if they continued recommending OPT at current levels.
DHS’s own regulatory analysis acknowledges substantial economic impacts and uncertainty over how universities, students and employers would respond.
STEM Graduates Could Face Particular Consequences:
The proposal could be especially important for graduates in:
- Computer Science
- Artificial Intelligence
- Engineering
- Data Science
- Biotechnology
- Mathematics
- Finance and quantitative disciplines
- Other STEM-designated programs.
Many international graduates currently rely on 12 months of post-completion OPT followed, where eligible, by a 24-month STEM OPT extension.
Under the proposed framework, a subsequent STEM OPT recommendation could trigger the additional $30,000 fee after the initial fee has been paid.
This could dramatically alter the economics of the current OPT-to-STEM-OPT-to-H-1B employment pathway.
Indian Students Could Be Among the Most Affected:
The proposed regulation could have particularly significant consequences for students from India, one of the largest populations of international students pursuing higher education and STEM programs in the United States.
Many Indian students pursue master’s degrees in computer science, engineering, data analytics and related STEM fields with the expectation that OPT will provide an opportunity to obtain practical experience after graduation.
If universities become unwilling to make OPT recommendations because of the financial burden—or transfer some or all of that burden to students or employers—the attractiveness and affordability of studying in the United States could change significantly.
OPT Is Not Being Eliminated:
It is equally important to understand what DHS is not proposing.
The proposed rule does not formally eliminate OPT.
It does not eliminate the 24-month STEM OPT extension.
It does not immediately terminate existing OPT Employment Authorization Documents.
And it does not impose the proposed fees today.
Instead, DHS is proposing a substantial new financial condition that would have to be satisfied before a school makes qualifying OPT recommendations after the final rule becomes effective.
What Should Current F-1 Students Do?
Students should not panic or abandon OPT plans based solely on the proposed rule.
There is no new $70,000 OPT fee in effect today.
Students who are currently eligible for OPT or STEM OPT should continue following existing filing requirements and deadlines.
At the same time, students approaching OPT eligibility should carefully monitor the rulemaking because the date of the DSO recommendation could become extremely important if DHS eventually finalizes the regulation.
Students should also avoid making unnecessary changes to graduation dates, employment, academic programs or immigration status solely because of a proposed regulation that has not yet become final.
Expect Significant Legal and Policy Debate:
The extraordinary size of the proposed fees is likely to generate substantial public debate over DHS’s statutory authority, administrative-law requirements and the practical impact on universities, international students and American employers.
The public-comment period will provide universities, students, employers, immigration organizations and other stakeholders an opportunity to challenge or support the proposal and submit economic and legal analyses.
After reviewing those comments, DHS could issue the rule substantially as proposed, modify it, withdraw it, or take no immediate further action.
If a final regulation is eventually issued, litigation challenging the rule is also possible.
The Bottom Line:
This is one of the most consequential proposed changes to the F-1 practical-training system in years.
If finalized substantially in its present form, the proposed $70,000 initial OPT fee and $30,000 subsequent OPT fee could fundamentally alter the relationship among American universities, international students and employers.
But students need to remember one critical fact:
The rule is proposed—not final—and the $70,000 and $30,000 fees are NOT currently in effect.
The next important date is November 9, 2026, when the public-comment period closes.
International students, universities and employers should monitor the rulemaking closely before making major decisions based upon the proposal.
Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Block New USCIS Green Card Policies Affecting Adjustment of Status Applicants
Challenge Targets USCIS Policies on Adjustment-of-Status Discretion and Denials Without RFEs or NOIDs:
A coalition of foreign nationals, labor unions, university faculty organizations and immigrant-rights groups has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block two recent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies that plaintiffs contend have made obtaining a green card through adjustment of status substantially more difficult and uncertain.
The lawsuit, American Association of University Professors et al. v. Mullin et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-14527, was filed October 5, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The plaintiffs include the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), its Harvard and Boston University chapters, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and affiliated unions, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and several individual green card applicants.
The lawsuit challenges two significant USCIS policy changes implemented in 2026.
Policy No. 1: Choosing Adjustment of Status Can Be Considered a Negative Discretionary Factor:
The first challenged policy, implemented in May 2026, concerns USCIS’s exercise of discretion in adjustment-of-status cases.
Adjustment of status allows an eligible foreign national already present in the United States to apply for lawful permanent residence by filing Form I-485 without departing the country to obtain an immigrant visa through a U.S. consulate abroad.
According to the lawsuit, USCIS’s new policy permits the agency to treat an applicant’s decision to pursue adjustment of status in the United States—rather than leave the country and complete immigrant visa processing abroad—as a negative factor in the discretionary analysis.
The plaintiffs argue that this represents a significant departure from longstanding immigration practice.
Congress specifically created adjustment of status as a statutory mechanism through which eligible individuals physically present in the United States may obtain permanent residence without necessarily having to depart the country for immigrant visa processing.
The lawsuit contends that USCIS cannot effectively penalize applicants merely for choosing a green card procedure expressly authorized by Congress.
Policy No. 2: USCIS Can Deny Cases Without First Issuing an RFE or NOID:
The second challenged policy became effective August 5, 2026 and potentially reaches far beyond adjustment-of-status applications.
Under the new USCIS evidentiary policy, adjudicating officers have broader discretion to deny immigration benefit requests without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when required initial evidence is missing or the applicant has failed to establish eligibility based upon the record submitted.
Under the previous USCIS policy, officers generally were directed to issue an RFE or NOID where additional evidence potentially could establish eligibility.
The August policy changed that approach.
USCIS now emphasizes that applicants and petitioners bear the burden of establishing eligibility at the time of filing and that officers may deny certain incomplete or insufficient filings without providing another opportunity to supplement the record.
Importantly, USCIS made the August 5 policy effective immediately and applied it to benefit requests already pending on August 5 as well as applications filed on or after that date.
Why the RFE Policy Is Particularly Important:
For immigration applicants, this change substantially increases the importance of filing a complete case from the beginning.
An applicant should no longer assume that USCIS necessarily will issue an RFE allowing missing documentation to be supplied later.
A case potentially could be denied because required initial evidence was omitted or because the evidence submitted with the original filing does not establish eligibility.
For adjustment-of-status applicants, this could involve critical documentation concerning matters such as:
- lawful admission or parole;
- maintenance of immigration status where required;
- underlying immigrant petition eligibility;
- birth and marriage documentation;
- Form I-864 Affidavit of Support where required;
- medical examination requirements;
- admissibility issues;
- criminal or immigration history;
- employment-based eligibility; and
- other required initial evidence.
USCIS itself has confirmed that the August 5 policy restored officers’ discretion to deny applications, petitions and other benefit requests without first issuing an RFE or NOID in appropriate circumstances.
Lawsuit Alleges Violations of the Administrative Procedure Act:
The plaintiffs contend that both policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Among other claims, they argue that the policies are:
Contrary to law;
In excess of USCIS’s statutory authority;
Arbitrary and capricious;
Improperly adopted without required notice-and-comment rulemaking; and
In violation of constitutional due-process protections.
The plaintiffs also contend that applying the policies to already-pending applications improperly disrupts expectations of applicants who filed their cases under the prior adjudicatory framework.
Plaintiffs Warn of Family, Employment and Educational Disruption:
The lawsuit argues that the consequences extend beyond immigration paperwork.
An adjustment applicant may have lived in the United States for years, established a career, raised children, attended American universities or built substantial family and community ties.
Requiring such an individual to pursue immigrant visa processing abroad—or treating the decision to remain in the United States and use adjustment of status as a negative discretionary factor—could expose applicants to lengthy separation from their families, employment and communities, according to the plaintiffs.
The organizations bringing the case therefore argue that the policies create significant uncertainty for otherwise eligible green card applicants.
Plaintiffs Ask Court for Preliminary Injunction:
One of the most important aspects of the lawsuit is the request for immediate judicial relief.
The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction that would temporarily prevent USCIS from implementing the challenged policies while the lawsuit proceeds.
They ultimately seek permanent relief that would vacate and enjoin the policies.
But No Injunction Has Been Issued Yet:
Adjustment applicants should understand this distinction clearly:
The filing of the lawsuit itself does not suspend the USCIS policies.
As of October 8, 2026, the challenged policies remain in effect unless and until the court enters an order blocking them or USCIS independently modifies or rescinds them.
Therefore, applicants should continue preparing cases under the rules currently being applied by USCIS.
Practical Consequences for Pending I-485 Applicants:
Until the litigation produces a different result, adjustment applicants should approach I-485 filings with considerably greater attention to completeness.
The safest practical assumption is that USCIS may adjudicate the case based upon the record submitted rather than providing an opportunity to repair deficiencies through an RFE.
Applicants should therefore carefully review whether all required forms and supporting documents have been submitted and whether the evidence establishes eligibility at the time of filing.
This is especially important in cases involving complicated immigration histories, status violations, unauthorized employment, prior visa refusals, criminal issues, public-charge questions, questions concerning the underlying I-130 or I-140 petition, or other potential grounds of inadmissibility.
Employment-Based Green Card Applicants Should Also Pay Close Attention:
The litigation is significant for employment-based adjustment applicants, including EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 beneficiaries.
An employee with an approved I-140 and current priority date should not assume that approval of the immigrant petition guarantees approval of the I-485.
Adjustment of status remains a separate application, and USCIS examines adjustment eligibility and admissibility independently.
The new policies therefore make careful preparation of the I-485 package particularly important.
Family-Based Applicants Are Also Affected:
The same concerns apply to family-sponsored adjustment applicants.
Marriage-based and other family-based cases frequently involve substantial documentation concerning the qualifying relationship, financial sponsorship, maintenance of status, immigration history and admissibility.
Under the August evidentiary policy, failure to provide required initial evidence could potentially result in denial without the applicant receiving an RFE first.
The Case Could Have Nationwide Importance:
Although the lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts, the policies being challenged are national USCIS policies.
The litigation therefore could become important well beyond the individual plaintiffs.
A court order setting aside or enjoining the challenged policies could potentially affect adjustment adjudications nationwide, depending upon the precise scope of any relief ultimately ordered by the court.
Conversely, if the government successfully defends the policies, USCIS could continue applying the more restrictive adjudication framework.
What Green Card Applicants Should Do Now:
For applicants, the most important message is not to assume that the lawsuit has already changed USCIS procedures.
It has not.
Until a court orders otherwise, applicants should proceed on the assumption that the current policies remain effective.
That means adjustment applications should be prepared as complete, fully documented cases from the outset rather than relying on the possibility of receiving an RFE later.
Applicants with I-485 cases already pending should also review whether USCIS already possesses the evidence necessary to establish eligibility, particularly if their application was originally prepared with an expectation that deficiencies could later be addressed through an RFE.
The Bottom Line:
This litigation could become one of the more consequential challenges to USCIS adjustment-of-status adjudication policy in 2026.
At issue are two fundamental questions:
Can USCIS treat an immigrant’s lawful decision to pursue adjustment of status in the United States rather than consular processing abroad as a negative discretionary factor?
And:
How broadly can USCIS deny immigration applications without first giving applicants an opportunity to correct evidentiary deficiencies through an RFE or NOID?
A federal court will now consider those questions.
For the moment, however, both challenged USCIS policies remain in effect, and no preliminary injunction has yet suspended them.
Green card applicants should therefore monitor the litigation closely while continuing to prepare adjustment applications according to USCIS’s currently effective policies.
Mandamus Lawsuits Can Expedite Delayed Immigration Cases — But They Are a Double-Edged Sword
When an immigration case has been pending for an unreasonably long time, filing a federal writ of mandamus lawsuit may be an effective tool to push the government to take action. A mandamus action generally does not ask the federal court to approve the immigration benefit. Rather, it asks the court to require the responsible government agency to perform its duty and make a decision on a case that has been excessively delayed.
However, mandamus should be used carefully because it can be a double-edged sword.
Once litigation is filed, a long-pending case may receive heightened attention from experienced immigration officers, government attorneys, and agency personnel. The case may be examined more closely than it would have been during ordinary processing.
For a strong and approvable case, this additional scrutiny may not present a significant concern and mandamus can sometimes be an effective way to obtain a decision.
But applicants should understand an important distinction: mandamus may help force a decision; it does not guarantee an approval.
A case that might eventually have moved through normal processing—even after a lengthy delay—could face additional questions, requests for evidence, notices of intent to deny, or potentially a denial once accelerated adjudication brings the case under closer examination.
Before filing a mandamus lawsuit, therefore, an experienced immigration attorney should carefully review the underlying petition or application, immigration history, admissibility issues, prior filings, inconsistencies, potential fraud or misrepresentation concerns, and any other weaknesses that could become significant under heightened scrutiny.
The goal should not simply be to obtain a faster decision. The goal should be to obtain a faster decision only when the case is sufficiently strong to withstand the scrutiny that may accompany federal litigation.
Mandamus can be an extremely useful tool for genuinely unreasonable immigration delays, but it should be treated as a strategic legal remedy—not merely a shortcut around USCIS processing times.
Use mandamus strategically, and with caution.
Sincerely,
Keshab Raj Seadie, Esq. Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult an attorney for personalized advice.
