Cognizant PERM Suspension Signals New Era of H-1B Enforcement: Employers Should Conduct Internal Immigration Audits Now
The U.S. Department of Labor’s reported suspension of Cognizant’s PERM filings amid an ongoing federal investigation involving alleged H-1B and PERM program fraud should serve as a major compliance warning to every U.S. employer sponsoring foreign workers.
According to recent reports, the Department of Labor has suspended Cognizant’s ability to proceed with new PERM filings while federal authorities investigate alleged violations involving employment-based immigration programs. The investigation reportedly involves the DOL Office of Inspector General and the White House Fraud Task Force. The government has not publicly established that Cognizant committed the alleged violations, and the investigation remains ongoing.
The development follows a broader federal enforcement initiative targeting potential abuse of the H-1B and PERM programs. In July 2026, the DOL Office of Inspector General announced a major investigation into alleged H-1B and PERM fraud, including alleged fraudulent filings, wage-kickback arrangements, and other schemes. Federal investigators have also conducted field checks at locations associated with H-1B employers.
For employers, the message is clear: immigration compliance can no longer be treated simply as a filing function.
Employers Should Conduct an Internal Immigration Audit Now:
Companies sponsoring foreign nationals should consider conducting a comprehensive internal immigration compliance audit before receiving a government inquiry, DOL investigation, or unannounced USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) site visit.
The audit should not be limited to H-1B cases. Employers should review their entire foreign-national workforce, including employees in H-1B, L-1, TN and E-3 status, as well as their PERM labor certification program.
The purpose is straightforward: determine whether what the company represented to USCIS or DOL still matches what is actually happening in the workplace.
For each sponsored employee, employers should verify the employee’s job title, duties, salary, worksite, work schedule, reporting structure, supervisor, client assignment where applicable, and continuing employment against the underlying petition, LCA and supporting documentation.
For remote and hybrid employees, employers should determine whether changes in work location created an LCA posting, a new LCA or H-1B amendment issue.
For L-1 employees, companies should verify that the qualifying corporate relationship continues to exist and that the employee is actually performing the managerial, executive, or specialized-knowledge duties described in the petition.
For TN and E-3 employees, employers should confirm that the actual position, duties, professional qualifications, work location and compensation continue to support the classification originally approved or admitted.
PERM Files Require Special Attention:
Employers sponsoring workers for permanent residence should separately audit their PERM program.
A PERM audit should examine the prevailing wage determination, job description, minimum requirements, recruitment steps, advertisements, notices of filing, recruitment report, applicant resumes, applicant disposition records, business necessity documentation where applicable, and evidence supporting the employer’s recruitment decisions.
Employers must be able to demonstrate that recruitment was conducted in good faith and that potentially qualified U.S. applicants were considered according to the applicable legal requirements.
The Cognizant development demonstrates how serious the consequences can become when the government questions an employer’s use of the PERM system. A compliance issue affecting individual cases can potentially expand into a broader investigation of an employer’s immigration practices.
What Happens During a DOL H-1B Investigation?
Employers receiving a DOL Wage and Hour Division investigation or audit request should contact immigration counsel immediately before submitting substantive responses.
Management, HR and immigration personnel should promptly preserve the relevant records and identify the petitions and employees potentially involved.
Among other items, counsel may need to review:
- Labor Condition Applications and Public Access Files;
- Forms I-129 and supporting H-1B petitions;
- Payroll and wage records;
- W-2s and pay statements;
- Actual versus required wages;
- Work locations and remote-work arrangements;
- LCA posting documentation;
- Benching or periods without productive work;
- Employee deductions and reimbursement arrangements;
- Changes in job duties or assignments;
- Employer-employee relationship and supervision;
- Terminated employees and withdrawal of H-1B petitions; and
- Required return-transportation obligations following certain employer-initiated terminations.
Employers should avoid creating explanations after the fact that conflict with previously filed petitions, payroll records or business documents. The objective should be to determine the facts, preserve the records, identify any compliance problem and develop a legally appropriate response.
The stakes can be substantial. DOL states that H-1B violations can result in back-wage liability, civil monetary penalties and debarment from future participation in the H-1B program, depending on the violation.
What Should Employers Do During an FDNS Site Visit?
USCIS FDNS officers may make unannounced visits to an employer’s headquarters, satellite office or beneficiary worksite.
USCIS states that during a compliance review, an officer may verify that the petitioning organization exists, review documents, photograph the premises and interview company representatives and the beneficiary. Officers may seek to verify the employee’s work location, workspace, hours, salary and actual job duties.
Every employer sponsoring H-1B or L-1 workers should therefore have an FDNS response protocol before an officer arrives.
Receptionists and front-desk personnel should know whom to contact. HR and management should know where immigration records are maintained. The company should designate an immigration compliance contact and counsel.
When an officer arrives, the employer should verify the officer’s identification and credentials and immediately notify the designated company representative and immigration counsel. Employees should answer questions truthfully and should not speculate about facts they do not know.
Most importantly, the beneficiary should understand the petition that the employer filed on his or her behalf. The employee’s description of the position, duties, supervisor, salary and work location should accurately reflect the actual employment and should not unexpectedly contradict the petition.
USCIS states that participation in an administrative FDNS site visit is voluntary but strongly encouraged. Refusing participation does not necessarily end the compliance review; the officer can document the refusal and complete the review using other available information.
One Inconsistency Can Lead to a Much Larger Investigation:
An immigration compliance problem does not necessarily remain confined to one employee.
A discrepancy discovered during an FDNS visit, DOL investigation, PERM audit, USCIS adjudication or employee complaint can potentially lead the government to examine other petitions and employment practices.
That is why companies should not wait until an investigator arrives.
A properly conducted internal audit gives the employer an opportunity to identify and address compliance problems before those problems are discovered by the government.
Our Recommendation: Audit H-1B, L-1, TN, E-3 and PERM Programs Now:
In today’s heightened enforcement environment, employers with significant foreign-national populations should consider establishing an annual or periodic immigration compliance audit.
At a minimum, the review should cover:
H-1B: LCA compliance, wages, worksites, remote work, job duties, amendments, Public Access Files, benching and termination procedures.
L-1: qualifying corporate relationships, managerial/executive or specialized-knowledge duties, work location and continued eligibility.
TN and E-3: occupational classification, qualifications, actual duties, compensation, worksite and continuing consistency with the underlying application.
PERM: prevailing wage, recruitment, advertisements, applicant review, lawful rejection reasons, minimum requirements, business necessity and retention of the complete audit file.
Employers should also conduct mock FDNS site visits and train receptionists, HR personnel, managers and foreign-national employees on what to do if government investigators arrive without advance notice.
Contact Our Office Before the Government Contacts You:
The recent federal enforcement activity is an important reminder that obtaining an H-1B, L-1, TN, E-3 approval or PERM certification is not the end of an employer’s compliance responsibilities.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. strongly recommends that employers conduct an internal immigration compliance audit now rather than waiting for a DOL investigation, USCIS FDNS site visit or other government enforcement action.
Our office can conduct an H-1B/LCA compliance audit, Public Access File review, L-1/TN/E-3 workforce review, PERM audit, and mock FDNS site-visit preparation, as well as assist employers responding to an actual DOL investigation or USCIS site visit.
If your company receives a DOL audit letter, Wage and Hour investigation, FDNS visit, USCIS verification inquiry or other government request, contact our office immediately before submitting a substantive response.
Early review can be critical to identifying discrepancies, preserving evidence, correcting issues where legally permissible and developing a coordinated response before an isolated compliance question becomes a broader government investigation.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.
Business Immigration • Employer Compliance • H-1B • L-1 • TN • E-3 • PERM • DOL Audits • FDNS Site Visits
DHS Expands Green Card Registration for Certain U.S.-Born Children of Foreign Government Employees
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued an interim final rule expanding the ability of certain children born in the United States to foreign government employees to register as lawful permanent residents (LPRs).
Published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2026, the rule implements provisions of Executive Order 14418 and expands the existing regulations that historically addressed children born in the United States to foreign diplomatic officers. The new rule became effective September 4, 2026 and generally applies prospectively to children born on or after that date.
Who Is Covered?
Under the new regulation, the term “foreign government employee” is broader than the traditional category of accredited foreign diplomatic officers. It generally includes:
- Foreign diplomatic officers accredited to the United States, including ambassadors and certain other diplomats;
- Nationals of a foreign country employed by that country’s embassy or consulate;
- Individuals employed by a foreign government in an official capacity; and
- Certain employees of international organizations that possess international-organization immunity.
The definition generally excludes personal employees or attendants of foreign officials, certain employees of state-owned enterprises, third-country nationals working for a foreign government, certain contractors, and foreign government employees who are in the United States in a personal rather than official capacity.
Registration as a Lawful Permanent Resident:
DHS has amended 8 CFR §101.3 to provide a mechanism for qualifying U.S.-born children of foreign government employees who do not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth to voluntarily register as lawful permanent residents.
The rule states that a qualifying person born in the United States to a foreign government employee may be considered a lawful permanent resident at birth. Registration as an LPR is voluntary, although individuals who are not U.S. citizens may separately be subject to alien-registration requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
DHS is also revising Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, to broaden the previous references to children “born under diplomatic status” to encompass qualifying children “born to foreign government employees.” Corresponding changes are also being made to Form G-325R, Biographic Information (Registration). (Colin Leitner)
Important Effective-Date Limitation:
The new rule applies prospectively to children born in the United States on or after September 4, 2026. Children born before September 4, 2026 will generally continue to be treated under the regulations that were in effect at the time of their birth. (GovInfo)
Why the Rule Matters:
Previously, the regulatory framework primarily addressed children born to foreign diplomatic officers. The new DHS rule substantially broadens the relevant category to encompass additional foreign government and qualifying international-organization employees.
As a result, immigration practitioners, foreign embassies and consulates, international organizations, and affected families should carefully examine the parent’s precise employment and immigration status at the time of the child’s birth before determining whether the child acquired U.S. citizenship or may instead qualify for registration as a lawful permanent resident.
The interim final rule was published at 91 Fed. Reg. 57249 (Sept. 9, 2026) under DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0496. It became effective September 4, 2026. DHS is accepting public comments through October 5, 2026.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.
For more than 25 years, our firm has represented individuals, families, professionals, and businesses in U.S. immigration and nationality matters. Individuals potentially affected by this new rule should obtain case-specific advice concerning citizenship at birth, immigration status, registration requirements, and eligibility for lawful permanent residence.
USCIS Expedite Requests: How to Speed Up Your Immigration Case When You Cannot Afford to Wait
Waiting months for USCIS to decide an immigration case can sometimes create consequences that simply cannot wait—loss of a job or major contract, interruption of critical medical treatment, family emergencies, urgent travel, or a problem created by USCIS itself.
In these circumstances, applicants and petitioners should know about an important but often misunderstood option: the USCIS Expedite Request.
An expedite request asks U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to take a pending application, petition, request, appeal, or motion out of its normal processing sequence and adjudicate it more quickly because exceptional circumstances justify urgent action.
Expedited processing is never guaranteed. USCIS evaluates requests individually and retains discretion over whether to grant them. The key is not simply asking USCIS to “process my case faster.” A successful request should identify a recognized expedite criterion and provide credible evidence showing why immediate adjudication is necessary.
When Will USCIS Consider an Expedite Request?
USCIS generally considers expedite requests involving one or more of the following circumstances:
1. Severe Financial Loss to a Company or Individual
This can be one of the most important grounds for employment-based cases.
A company may face severe financial loss because a critical employee cannot begin or continue employment, an important project may be lost, contractual obligations cannot be fulfilled, operations could be interrupted, or substantial revenue or employment may be jeopardized.
An individual may face severe financial consequences from the inability to work or another immigration-related delay.
However, ordinary inconvenience or the normal financial consequences associated with immigration processing may not be enough.
USCIS also considers whether the claimed urgency resulted from the applicant’s or petitioner’s own failure to file the underlying case or expedite request within a reasonable period or to timely respond to a request for additional evidence.
Documentation is critical. Depending on the circumstances, supporting evidence might include contracts, payroll records, financial statements, employer letters, termination notices, project deadlines, evidence of lost revenue, proof of inability to work, or other documents demonstrating the actual financial consequences of continued delay.
2. Emergency or Urgent Humanitarian Reasons
USCIS may expedite a case because of an emergency or urgent humanitarian circumstances.
Examples may include a serious medical condition, death or critical illness of a family member, urgent need for medical treatment, humanitarian crisis, urgent family circumstances, or another situation where waiting through normal processing could cause significant harm.
For certain travel-document cases, USCIS has specifically recognized that a pressing or critical need to travel may support expedited adjudication, depending upon the facts.
A strong humanitarian request should document both the emergency and why USCIS action is urgently necessary.
Evidence could include medical records, physician letters, hospital documentation, death certificates, evidence of the family relationship, travel documentation, or other records establishing the emergency.
3. Clear USCIS Error
USCIS may also consider expedited action when a clear USCIS error has caused or contributed to the problem.
For example, USCIS may have issued a document containing an agency error, incorrectly handled a case, or taken an action that creates an urgent problem requiring correction.
The important distinction is that there must generally be evidence of an actual USCIS error—not simply disagreement with an adjudication or frustration over normal processing times.
When relying on USCIS error, the request should clearly establish:
What USCIS did; what the correct information or action should have been; evidence demonstrating the error; and what harm will occur unless USCIS promptly corrects it.
4. Compelling U.S. Government Interests
USCIS may expedite cases involving compelling U.S. government interests, including matters involving public safety, national security, or cases identified as urgent by a federal government agency.
When an expedite request is made based on the interests of a federal agency or department, government support for the request can be particularly important.
5. Certain Nonprofit Organization Requests
A qualifying nonprofit organization may request expedited processing when its request furthers the cultural or social interests of the United States, subject to USCIS requirements.
The organization’s nonprofit status alone does not necessarily mean USCIS will expedite a case. The request should explain why the particular immigration case and the beneficiary’s work further the relevant U.S. cultural or social interest and why faster adjudication is necessary.
How Do You Make a USCIS Expedite Request?
The first step is usually to have the underlying immigration application or petition properly filed and obtain the USCIS receipt number.
Depending upon the case and how it was filed, an expedite request may be initiated through the USCIS Contact Center, the applicant’s USCIS online account, or another procedure designated by USCIS for the particular case type.
Once USCIS receives the request, the agency may ask for documentary evidence supporting the claimed emergency or other expedite criterion.
This is where preparation matters.
An expedite request should not simply state:
“Please expedite my case because I need a decision urgently.”
Instead, it should function much like a carefully documented legal submission.
A well-prepared request should identify the applicant or petitioner and receipt number, specify the USCIS expedite criterion being invoked, explain the factual circumstances, establish why normal processing would cause serious consequences, demonstrate why the urgency was not unnecessarily created by the applicant or petitioner, and provide supporting documentary evidence.
What Evidence Should You Submit?
The evidence depends entirely upon the reason for the request.
For a severe financial loss case, we may submit employer declarations, contracts, financial records, project documentation, payroll evidence, employment records or evidence establishing the financial consequences of delay.
For a medical or humanitarian emergency, documentation may include physician letters, medical records, hospital documentation, evidence of urgent treatment, death certificates and proof of family relationships.
For a USCIS error, the evidence may include the original filing, USCIS notices, approval notices, correspondence, I-94 records, EADs, green cards or other documents demonstrating precisely where the government error occurred.
The strongest expedite requests connect the evidence directly to the claimed urgency.
Expedite Request Is Different From Premium Processing:
An expedite request should not be confused with premium processing.
Premium processing is a paid USCIS service available for designated immigration benefits and provides an established adjudicative-action timeframe.
An expedite request, by contrast, is a discretionary request based upon exceptional circumstances. Paying an additional premium-processing fee is not how an expedite request is made.
Where premium processing is available, applicants and employers should carefully evaluate whether it provides the more appropriate and predictable mechanism for obtaining faster action.
Expedite Request vs. Outside-Normal-Processing-Time Inquiry:
These are also different procedures.
A case does not necessarily qualify for expedited treatment merely because it has been pending for a long time.
If a case is outside USCIS’s published inquiry timeframe, the applicant may be able to submit a case inquiry or service request. An expedite request requires a separate showing that exceptional circumstances warrant faster adjudication.
Conversely, an applicant facing a genuine emergency does not necessarily need to establish merely that the case is older than every other pending case. The focus of an expedite request is the qualifying urgent circumstance.
USCIS may approve the expedite request, deny it, request additional evidence, or determine that the circumstances do not warrant taking the case out of the normal adjudication sequence.
Importantly, approval of an expedite request is not approval of the underlying immigration benefit.
Expediting generally means USCIS will attempt to adjudicate the case faster. The applicant or petitioner must still establish eligibility for the underlying immigration benefit, and USCIS may still issue an RFE, NOID or other request where appropriate.
How Our Office Can Help
At the Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C., we can evaluate whether the facts of a delayed immigration case potentially satisfy USCIS expedite criteria and prepare a comprehensive request supported by documentary evidence.
Our approach is to determine:
What is the emergency? What USCIS criterion applies? What evidence proves it? What specific harm will occur from continued delay? And why does USCIS need to act now?
Where appropriate, we can assist with expedite requests involving employment-based petitions and applications, adjustment of status, employment authorization, travel documents, family immigration matters and other USCIS benefits.
If your immigration case is causing severe financial loss, an urgent humanitarian or medical problem, critical travel needs, consequences resulting from a clear USCIS error, or another serious time-sensitive situation, do not simply continue waiting without reviewing your options.
Contact the Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. immediately for an evaluation of whether a USCIS expedite request may be appropriate.
Major Changes for F-1 and J-1 Students: Fixed Admission Periods, Extension Filings and New Academic Restrictions
International students and exchange visitors should prepare for significant changes affecting how long they may remain in the United States and how they may extend their stay.
Under the new rules scheduled to take effect September 15, 2026, the longstanding practice of admitting many F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors for “Duration of Status,” or D/S, is being replaced by fixed periods of authorized admission. The changes also impose important restrictions on school transfers, changes of educational programs, repeat degree levels, English-language study, and extensions of stay.
Need More Time Beyond Your Authorized Stay?
Students and exchange visitors who need additional time beyond their authorized admission date (“AUD”) will generally need to take additional steps.
First, the Designated School Official (DSO) for F-1 students or Alternate/Responsible Officer (ARO/RO) for J-1 exchange visitors must recommend the extension in SEVIS and issue an updated Form I-20 or DS-2019.
The individual must then generally either file Form I-539 with USCIS to request an extension of stay or depart the United States and seek readmission at a port of entry with appropriate documentation.
This represents a major practical change from the traditional D/S system, under which qualifying students could often continue maintaining status through their academic program without repeatedly requesting an extension of their authorized stay from USCIS.
New Restrictions on Transfers and Program Changes:
The new framework also places significant limitations on academic mobility.
For undergraduate students, school transfers and program changes generally will not be permitted during the first academic year unless an exception is authorized through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).
For graduate students, the restrictions are even more significant: transfers or changes of educational programs generally will not be permitted, absent an applicable SEVP exception.
Students should therefore carefully evaluate their school and program selection before beginning their studies.
Progression to Higher Degree Levels:
Another major change concerns students who want to pursue additional education after completing a degree.
Beginning September 15, students generally may proceed only to a higher educational level. This can restrict a student who has already completed a bachelor’s or master’s degree from beginning another program at the same degree level.
For example, a student who completes a master’s degree generally would not simply be able to begin a second master’s program to continue F-1 status. Students considering a second degree, change in field of study, or another program at the same educational level should obtain advice before making enrollment decisions.
English-Language Programs Limited to 24 Months:
Students enrolled in English-language training programs face an additional restriction. Participation in such programs will generally be limited to an aggregate maximum of 24 months.
This limitation makes careful tracking of prior English-language study particularly important.
What Happens to F-2 and J-2 Dependents?
The authorized stay of F-2 and J-2 dependents is generally tied to that of the principal F-1 student or J-1 exchange visitor.
When the principal requests an extension, qualifying dependents in the United States may generally be included in the extension request using Form I-539A, as applicable.
Dependents who are outside the United States generally do not need to file an extension application merely because the principal is extending status inside the country. When seeking admission after the new rule becomes applicable, however, CBP may admit the dependent for a fixed period corresponding to the principal’s authorized stay.
Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Stop the Rule:
The new requirements are already facing a federal court challenge.
A coalition led by NAFSA: Association of International Educators has filed litigation in federal court in Massachusetts seeking to block implementation of the rule.
As of this writing, however, no court order has stopped the September 15, 2026 implementation. Students, exchange visitors, universities, and employers should therefore prepare based on the rule taking effect as scheduled unless a court or DHS changes the situation.
What F-1 and J-1 Students Should Do Now:
International students and exchange visitors should immediately review their I-94, I-20 or DS-2019, program completion date, OPT/STEM OPT plans, and any anticipated school transfer or change of educational level.
Students who may require additional time should speak with their DSO or RO/ARO as early as possible rather than waiting until their authorized stay is close to expiring. Any required extension or employment-authorization application should be prepared and filed as early as legally permitted.
Students should also maintain complete copies of every I-20, DS-2019, I-94, USCIS receipt notice, approval notice, EAD and other immigration document.
The elimination of D/S makes immigration-status planning considerably more important because students can no longer assume that maintaining enrollment by itself will necessarily extend their authorized period of stay.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.
F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, F-2/J-2 dependents, universities and employers with questions about the September 15 changes should contact our office to review individual timelines, extension requirements, OPT/STEM OPT eligibility, school transfers, degree progression and maintenance of lawful status.
USCIS Resumes Adjustment of Status Adjudications for Certain FY2026 Diversity Visa Applicants Following Court Order
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced that it will resume adjudication of certain pending adjustment of status applications under the Fiscal Year 2026 Diversity Visa (DV) Program, following a federal district court order in Medani v. Trump.
The announcement provides important, although potentially temporary, relief to qualifying DV-2026 applicants whose adjustment of status cases had been affected by USCIS policy restrictions.
Federal Court Temporarily Vacates USCIS Policy
On August 28, 2026, the federal district court issued an order in Medani v. Trump temporarily vacating USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0193 and requiring USCIS to resume adjudicating pending adjustment of status applications for members of the court-certified class under the FY2026 Diversity Visa Program.
USCIS subsequently announced on September 4, 2026 that it will comply with the court’s order pending further litigation.
As a result, USCIS is once again required to move forward with adjudication of qualifying pending DV adjustment applications covered by the court order.
Who May Benefit?
The court order is particularly significant for members of the certified class with pending FY2026 Diversity Visa adjustment of status applications.
Applicants should not assume, however, that the ruling automatically grants permanent residence or applies to every Diversity Visa applicant. USCIS must still determine whether each applicant satisfies the applicable requirements for adjustment of status and Diversity Visa eligibility.
The scope of the relief also depends on whether an applicant falls within the certified class covered by the court’s order.
September 30 Deadline Remains Extremely Important:
The timing is particularly significant because the FY2026 Diversity Visa Program ends on September 30, 2026.
Diversity Visa cases are unusually time-sensitive. Unlike many other immigrant visa categories, DV eligibility is tied to the applicable fiscal year. With only weeks remaining in FY2026, affected adjustment applicants should treat the resumption of adjudications as an urgent development.
Applicants with pending cases should carefully monitor their USCIS accounts and correspondence and be prepared to respond immediately to any Request for Evidence (RFE), interview notice, medical examination issue, or other USCIS request.
Court Battle Is Not Over:
USCIS has specifically indicated that its compliance is pending further litigation.
Therefore, the August 28 order should not be viewed as the final resolution of the dispute. The government may continue challenging the ruling, and subsequent court orders could affect USCIS’s obligations or the availability of relief.
For now, however, USCIS has confirmed that it will comply with the district court’s order and resume qualifying adjudications.
What Should Pending DV-2026 Applicants Do?
Individuals with a pending FY2026 DV-based Form I-485 should immediately determine whether they are covered by the certified class and whether USCIS has everything necessary to adjudicate their applications.
Applicants should review their case status, ensure that their medical and supporting documentation are in order, monitor all USCIS communications closely, and consult immigration counsel promptly if their case remains stalled.
Given the rapidly approaching September 30, 2026 fiscal-year deadline, there may be very little time to address an unresolved issue.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.
Our office is closely monitoring developments affecting the FY2026 Diversity Visa Program and the Medani v. Trump litigation.
BIA: Failure to Comply With Voluntary Departure Order Can Trigger Civil Monetary Penalty Without Proof of Willfulness
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has issued an important precedent decision holding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may impose a civil monetary penalty on a noncitizen who fails to depart the United States within the period authorized by a voluntary departure order—without proving that the failure to depart was willful.
In Matter of R–P–L–, 29 I&N Dec. 859 (BIA 2026), decided August 28, 2026, the BIA upheld a $3,000 civil fine imposed by DHS on an individual who had been granted voluntary departure but failed to leave the United States as ordered.
No “Willfulness” Requirement:
One of the most significant aspects of the decision is the BIA’s conclusion that INA §240B(d)(1) does not require DHS to establish that the failure to depart was willful.
The Board reasoned that Congress did not include the word “willful” in the relevant statutory provision. Accordingly, DHS does not need to prove that the individual deliberately or intentionally violated the voluntary departure order before imposing the applicable civil monetary penalty.
This is important because an argument that the individual did not intentionally disregard the order may not, by itself, prevent imposition of the fine.
Preponderance of the Evidence Is Sufficient:
The BIA also addressed the government’s burden of proof.
According to the Board, the appropriate standard for imposing an immigration-related civil monetary penalty is “preponderance of the evidence.”
This generally means DHS must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the facts supporting the civil penalty are true. A heightened criminal standard such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply.
Notice to the Attorney Is Sufficient:
The respondent raised several arguments challenging whether adequate notice of the consequences of failing to depart had been provided.
The BIA rejected those arguments.
The Board found that both the Immigration Judge’s order and the BIA’s subsequent order contained the mandatory notice regarding penalties required by INA §240B(d)(3).
The BIA further held that:
- Notice concerning voluntary departure penalties does not have to appear in the Notice to Appear (NTA);
- The government is not required to provide the relevant notice or document in the noncitizen’s native language; and
- Notice properly provided to the individual’s attorney of record constitutes proper notice.
These findings make it particularly important for individuals in removal proceedings to maintain communication with their attorneys and understand every deadline and condition contained in an Immigration Judge or BIA order.
$3,000 Fine Upheld More Than 20 Years Later:
The facts of Matter of R–P–L– demonstrate the potentially long-lasting consequences of failing to comply with voluntary departure.
The respondent was originally granted voluntary departure in 2003. In 2004, the BIA reinstated voluntary departure for an additional 30-day period.
The respondent did not depart.
More than two decades later, in 2025, DHS imposed a $3,000 civil monetary penalty based on the failure to comply with the voluntary departure order.
The BIA concluded that the $3,000 penalty was consistent with INA §240B(d) and 8 CFR §1240.26(l) and dismissed the respondent’s appeal.
Why This Decision Matters:
Voluntary departure can provide important advantages in removal proceedings because it allows an eligible individual to leave the United States voluntarily rather than departing under a formal removal order.
But accepting voluntary departure also creates strict legal obligations and deadlines.
Failure to depart within the authorized period can result in serious immigration consequences in addition to a monetary penalty, including statutory restrictions on certain forms of immigration relief.
Matter of R–P–L– reinforces that DHS may pursue the monetary consequences of noncompliance even when the individual argues that the failure to depart was not intentional.
Individuals Granted Voluntary Departure Should Take Deadlines Seriously:
Anyone who has been granted voluntary departure should carefully review the Immigration Judge’s or BIA’s order and determine the exact deadline for departure.
Individuals who believe they cannot depart by the deadline, are considering an appeal or motion, or have experienced changed circumstances should obtain legal advice before the voluntary departure period expires. Certain litigation decisions can have significant consequences for voluntary departure, and simply remaining in the United States after the deadline can expose the individual to additional penalties.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.
The BIA’s decision in Matter of R–P–L–, 29 I&N Dec. 859 (BIA 2026) is an important reminder that voluntary departure is not simply permission to leave the United States—it is a time-sensitive legal obligation carrying significant consequences for noncompliance.
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.
