US PERM Suspension 2026: Legal Rights, H-1B Extensions and Options for Indian IT Workers

By Adv. Tarun Choudhury, Supreme Court Advocate

The US administration’s decision announced on October 8, 2026, to suspend eight major technology companies from the Permanent Labor Certification programme has created considerable uncertainty for foreign professionals pursuing employment-based green cards.

The companies named in public reporting include Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Wipro, HCLTech and Capgemini. The administration has presented the action as part of a broader effort to investigate alleged misuse of employment-based immigration programmes and protect American workers. These allegations must not be mistaken for adjudicated findings of wrongdoing against every company or every foreign employee.

For Indian IT professionals, the immediate concern is practical. What happens to a pending PERM application? Does the suspension affect an existing H-1B approval? Can a worker change employers? What happens if the employer has already obtained PERM certification or an approved I-140 petition? And can the affected companies challenge the government’s action?

The answers depend on the written suspension direction, the employee’s immigration history and the stage reached in the green-card process.

This article examines the legal framework, the potential remedies and the steps affected workers should take now.

First Five Things Affected Workers Should Do

Before making an employment or immigration decision, affected professionals should take these five steps.

1. Confirm the exact status of the case. Ask the employer’s immigration team or attorney whether the PERM application is pending, approved, withdrawn, denied or expressly covered by a suspension notice.
2. Check the H-1B expiry dates. Review the latest approval notice, Form I-94 and any deadline for an extension or change of status.
3. Establish the I-140 position. Find out whether an immigrant petition has been filed, whether USCIS has approved it and whether a priority date has been established.
4. Review extension eligibility. Ask qualified US immigration counsel whether an extension may be available under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21).
5. Preserve all documents. Keep copies of immigration notices, PERM and I-140 records, employment contracts, pay records and relevant correspondence from the employer.

Important: Do not resign, change employers or assume that your immigration case has been cancelled merely because your employer has been named in a public announcement. Obtain advice based on your actual case record.

1. What Is PERM and Why Does the Suspension Matter?

PERM stands for Program Electronic Review Management. It is the Department of Labor’s labour-certification process for many employer-sponsored employment-based green-card cases.

In a typical case, the employer must complete the applicable labour-market testing and recruitment requirements before filing a PERM application. If the application is certified, the employer generally proceeds by filing Form I-140, the Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, with US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The worker may then pursue adjustment of status or consular processing when the relevant requirements are satisfied and an immigrant visa is available.

PERM certification is not itself a green card. It does not independently grant lawful immigration status or employment authorisation.

The suspension matters because it may prevent an affected employer from progressing through the labour-certification stage. Workers whose cases depend on new PERM filings may consequently face delays in their green-card plans.

However, the effect is not identical for every worker.

A person whose employer has not yet filed PERM is in a different position from someone with an approved labour certification, an approved I-140 or an adjustment-of-status application that has already been pending for a substantial period.

The governing rules appear in 20 CFR Part 656, the official Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.

2. What Did the US Government Announce on October 8?

On October 8, 2026, Vice President JD Vance and Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling publicly announced the suspension of the named technology companies from the PERM programme. Public reporting distinguished Microsoft and Adobe, which were described as being suspended because of multiple active federal investigations, from the other technology companies included in the announcement.

The government’s stated concerns include alleged misuse of immigration programmes and the displacement of American workers. The legal question, however, is not resolved by the political announcement alone.

The formal direction matters. Its wording determines which legal entities and applications are covered, what authority was invoked, when the action took effect and what procedures may be available to challenge it.

The public descriptions do not, by themselves, establish the precise regulatory basis applicable to every company. That distinction becomes important when examining whether the action can be challenged under the PERM regulations.

Microsoft: The Allegations and the Legal Test

Vance alleged that Microsoft laid off approximately 6,000 American workers in 2025 while filing 3,682 PERM applications, including nearly 1,000 that he said concerned positions similar to those held by laid-off workers. These figures were presented as part of the administration’s criticism of the company’s immigration practices.

These allegations raise questions that deserve examination. But the figures alone do not prove that Microsoft violated the PERM regulations.

The legal assessment requires more than comparing aggregate layoff and application numbers. It must consider the relevant dates, locations, occupations, recruitment procedures and the employer’s obligations under the applicable law.

That brings us to an important provision of the PERM regulations.

3. What Does 20 CFR § 656.17(k) Say About Layoffs?

Section 656.17(k) of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations addresses certain layoffs by an employer seeking labour certification.

Under 20 CFR § 656.17(k)(1), if the employer-applicant has had a layoff in the area of intended employment within six months before filing an application involving the occupation for which certification is sought, or a related occupation, the employer must document that it notified and considered all potentially qualified laid-off US workers for the job opportunity. It must also document the results of that notification and consideration.

The regulation defines a layoff as an involuntary separation of one or more employees without cause or prejudice.

Under § 656.17(k)(2), a related occupation is one that requires workers to perform a majority of the essential duties involved in the occupation for which certification is sought.

The exact wording is available in 20 CFR § 656.17, including paragraph (k).

This rule is important because it connects certain layoffs with an employer’s labour-certification obligations.

However, the regulation does not impose a blanket prohibition on PERM applications whenever a company conducts layoffs.

Key Questions for Assessing a Potential Violation

To establish a potential violation, the facts must be tested against the actual requirements:

• Was there an involuntary separation without cause or prejudice?
• Did the layoff occur in the area of intended employment?
• Did it occur within the six months before the relevant PERM filing?
• Did the affected workers perform the same or a related occupation as defined by the regulation?
• Did the employer notify and consider all potentially qualified laid-off US workers and document the results?

A company may have conducted layoffs and still have complied with the regulation. Conversely, a failure to satisfy the applicable notification and consideration requirements may raise a genuine compliance issue.

The allegations concerning Microsoft should therefore be assessed against the statutory and regulatory requirements and the underlying evidence. They should not be presented as proof of a violation before the relevant facts have been established.

4. The September 18 Executive Order Adds a Separate Layer of H-1B Scrutiny

The PERM suspension must also be viewed against the background of a separate executive order issued on September 18, 2026, titled Enhancing Program Integrity and Interagency Coordination in the Administration of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Program.

Section 3(a) directs the Secretaries of State, Labor and Homeland Security to take into account whether an employer sponsoring H-1B workers has directly or indirectly carried out layoffs during the preceding year, or plans future layoffs, that negatively affect similarly situated US workers.

Section 3(b) directs the Department of Labor, through the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, to begin reviewing data relating to previously submitted labour condition applications within 30 days.

The full text is available in the official White House executive order of September 18, 2026.

This development is significant for employers whose workforce reductions may overlap with H-1B sponsorship. It signals a broader policy of increased scrutiny where layoffs may negatively affect similarly situated American workers.

Nevertheless, the order does not automatically establish that every employer conducting layoffs has violated immigration law. Nor does it, by itself, cancel every existing H-1B approval.

The order must also be distinguished from the October 8 PERM suspensions. One concerns scrutiny of H-1B applications, petitions, visas and entry; the other concerns labour certification for certain employment-based green-card cases.

The two developments may affect the same employers, but they operate through different legal mechanisms.

The executive order also states that it does not create an enforceable right or benefit against the United States. That limitation is relevant when considering whether a worker or employer can rely on the order itself as the basis for a legal claim.

5. Can the Department of Labor Suspend PERM Processing?

The central regulatory provision is 20 CFR § 656.31(b), which addresses possible fraud or wilful misrepresentation involving labour-certification applications.

Under § 656.31(b)(1), where the Department of Labor learns that an employer, attorney or agent is involved in possible fraud or wilful misrepresentation connected with the PERM programme, the Department will refer the matter to an appropriate government entity for investigation and provide a copy of the referral to the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General.

The regulation also permits the Department to suspend processing of applications involving the relevant employer, attorney or agent in the circumstances specified by the provision. Processing may remain suspended while the investigation and/or judicial proceedings continue. Unless the investigating agency requests otherwise in writing, the Department must provide written notification of the suspension.

The provision should be read carefully. It does not mean that every allegation of misconduct automatically proves fraud, nor does it establish that every employer named in a public announcement has committed a violation.

The Authority Question: Who Made the Operative Decision?

The Cognizant action has raised questions about the relationship between the Inspector General’s investigative role and the Department’s authority to suspend processing.

The relevant question is not simply whether the Inspector General or the Department announced the action. The Office of Inspector General is part of the Department of Labor. The important issue is which authorised official or component made the operative decision, under what authority, and in what form.

For the October 8 action, the public announcement was associated with Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling and Vice President JD Vance. The underlying direction must still be examined to establish the precise legal authority and scope of the suspension.

The distinction matters because an investigation, a public announcement and a formal suspension decision are not necessarily the same legal act.

The full text is available at 20 CFR § 656.31.

Why the Legal Basis for Each Company Matters

Public reporting described Microsoft and Adobe as being suspended because of multiple active federal investigations. The public explanation for the other named technology companies does not, by itself, establish the individual regulatory basis applicable to each of them.

Section 656.31(b) provides a mechanism for suspending processing in circumstances involving possible fraud or wilful misrepresentation and an investigation. A company considering a legal challenge would need to examine whether the actual suspension direction fits within the regulation and whether the applicable procedures were followed.

This could become a central issue in any challenge. But the absence of a detailed explanation in a public announcement is not, by itself, proof that the decision is unlawful.

The operative direction, the administrative record and any applicable notice are essential to a proper legal assessment.

The 180-Day Mechanism

Under § 656.31(b)(2), a suspension under paragraph (b)(1) may initially last for up to 180 days.

No later than 180 days after the suspension began, if no criminal indictment or information has been issued, or judicial proceedings have not been concluded, the National Certifying Officer may resume processing some or all affected applications or extend the suspension until the investigation and/or judicial proceedings are completed.

This is a discretionary mechanism, not an automatic expiry rule.

If the October 8 action was imposed under this provision and the suspension began on October 8, 2026, the 180-day point would fall around April 6, 2027. That calculation is conditional: the legal basis and actual start date must be confirmed from the operative direction.

The date should not be represented as a guaranteed reopening date.

6. Cognizant and Cloudera: Why the September Timeline Matters

The Cognizant situation has a separate background.

The action was first reported as announced on September 8, 2026. On September 18, 2026, the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General issued a statement saying that visa applications from Cognizant and Cloudera had been suspended pending a criminal investigation. The statement referred to investigative activity, including subpoenas and search warrants. The investigation involved suspected fraud; an investigation is not itself a final finding of wrongdoing.

The Department of Labor Office of Inspector General’s September 18 statement is the primary source for what the office announced on that date.

The two dates should not be conflated. September 8 was the reported initial announcement; September 18 was the date of the OIG statement.

If the Cognizant action was a suspension under § 656.31(b) that began on September 8, the 180-day point would fall around March 7, 2027. This remains conditional on the actual legal basis and start date.

It is separate from the conditional April 2027 calculation for the October 8 action.

Does the Cognizant Action Also Affect H-1B Processing?

Public reporting has used broader language about the earlier action, including references to “visa applications.” The precise effect on H-1B processing cannot safely be determined from that phrase alone.

PERM labour certification and H-1B petitions are separate legal processes. A PERM suspension does not, by itself, cancel an existing H-1B approval or establish that all H-1B petitions involving the employer have been suspended.

However, the Cognizant and Cloudera reports create a specific reason for caution: readers should not assume that the earlier action was limited to PERM, nor should they assume that every H-1B petition was separately restricted.

The underlying direction and any separate agency notices must be examined to resolve that question.

7. What Happens if Fraud or Wilful Misrepresentation Is Found?

Section 656.31(e) addresses the consequences where an employer, attorney or agent is found to have committed fraud or wilful misrepresentation involving the PERM programme.

In the circumstances described by the regulation, the suspension of affected applications terminates, and pending applications are decided on their merits. They may be denied in accordance with the applicable provisions.

The termination of a suspension does not mean that all pending applications must be approved. Each application remains subject to a decision on its merits.

Section 656.31(f) separately permits debarment from the PERM programme for a reasonable period of no more than three years in specified circumstances.

Debarment is not automatic merely because a suspension has been announced. The regulation requires a written Notice of Debarment stating the reasons, the start date and the period of debarment, and identifying appeal opportunities under § 656.26. A request for review within the permitted period can affect when the debarment takes effect.

The relevant provisions are set out in 20 CFR § 656.31 and 20 CFR § 656.26.

A suspension pending investigation must therefore be distinguished from a final finding of fraud or a formal debarment decision.

8. Can the Companies Challenge the Suspensions in Court?

Potentially, yes. The prospects of a challenge depend on the operative decision, the evidence and the available avenues of review.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), particularly 5 USC § 706, provides a framework for judicial review of agency action where review is available. Among other things, a reviewing court may set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.

The official statute is available through the United States Code, 5 USC § 706.

A company considering litigation would need to address several questions:

• What written decision actually imposed the suspension?
• Which official or agency component made the decision?
• What statutory or regulatory authority was invoked?
• Does the factual basis fit the provision relied upon?
• Were applicable notice and procedural requirements followed?
• Is the action final and reviewable?
• Does the company have standing, and are there other administrative remedies that must be pursued?

The government could argue that the action is not final agency action, that an alternative administrative process should be exhausted, or that the decision falls within an area committed to agency discretion. Whether those arguments succeed would depend on the facts and the governing law.

The difference between the public explanations for Microsoft and Adobe and those for the other named companies makes the underlying documents particularly important. A company-specific legal assessment should examine whether the operative direction provides a sufficient basis for the action against that particular employer.

A court challenge is therefore a possible route, not a guaranteed remedy. Filing a lawsuit would not necessarily result in immediate resumption of PERM processing.

9. Does the PERM Suspension Automatically Affect H-1B Status?

No. A PERM suspension does not, by itself, cancel an existing H-1B approval.

PERM labour certification is administered by the Department of Labor. H-1B petitions are adjudicated by USCIS under the relevant immigration laws and regulations.

An employee whose employer is subject to a PERM suspension does not automatically lose H-1B status solely because of that suspension. The employee must, however, continue to meet the requirements of the current immigration status and comply with applicable deadlines.

Workers should verify:

• the expiry date on their latest Form I-94;
• the validity of their H-1B approval notice;
• whether an extension petition has been or needs to be filed;
• whether any separate communication affects their petition; and
• whether the employer has received a direction that extends beyond PERM processing.

The September 18 executive order adds a further layer of H-1B scrutiny connected with layoffs. The separate Cognizant and Cloudera situation also warrants caution because public descriptions of that action used broader language than a PERM-only suspension.

The correct advice is neither to panic nor to assume that every immigration process is unaffected. Workers should establish the position from the relevant documents.

10. Can H-1B Workers Obtain Extensions Under AC21?

Some workers may qualify for H-1B extensions under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21). Eligibility depends on the facts of the case.

One-Year Extensions for Lengthy Green-Card Processing

AC21 § 106(a) permits certain H-1B workers to obtain extensions in one-year increments where the qualifying labour-certification application or immigrant petition was filed at least 365 days before the relevant six-year H-1B limit, subject to the statutory conditions.

A worker whose PERM application was never filed is not in the same position as a worker whose qualifying application was filed sufficiently early.

Where a PERM application is already filed but its processing has been suspended, the suspension does not necessarily erase the historical filing date. However, the worker should not assume that a suspended application automatically satisfies every AC21 requirement. The filing’s status, the applicable statutory provision and the worker’s individual immigration history must be assessed by qualified counsel.

Three-Year Extensions in Certain Cases

AC21 § 104(c) may permit extensions of up to three years in certain circumstances where a worker has an approved employment-based immigrant petition but cannot obtain permanent residence because of applicable immigrant-visa numerical limitations.

This is not a general extension available to every employee affected by the suspension. The statutory and regulatory requirements must be satisfied.

The broader H-1B period-of-stay framework appears in 8 USC § 1184.

Employees approaching the end of their authorised stay should review possible extension options early rather than wait until the expiry date is close.

11. What Happens to an Approved PERM Certification?

An approved PERM certification generally has a 180-calendar-day validity period for submission to USCIS in support of the relevant I-140 petition. If it is not submitted within that period, the certification expires.

The Department of Labor explains this rule on its PERM programme page.

This 180-day validity period is different from the 180-day suspension mechanism under § 656.31(b)(2).

A worker whose PERM certification has been approved should urgently establish:

• the date of certification;
• the applicable expiry date;
• whether the employer has filed the I-140 petition;
• whether USCIS has issued a receipt notice; and
• whether the suspension direction affects the next step in the process.

Workers should not assume that an approved certification remains usable indefinitely. Equally, they should not assume that the public announcement automatically invalidates a certification that has already been approved.

The actual certification and filing records must be reviewed.

12. Can a Worker Change Employers or Continue the Green-Card Process Elsewhere?

Changing employers may be possible, but the legal consequences depend on the stage of the green-card process and the worker’s current immigration status.

A Pending PERM Application Cannot Simply Be Transferred

A PERM application is filed by an employer for a specific job opportunity. The employee cannot personally take a pending PERM application and transfer it to another employer.

A new employer may be able to initiate a separate PERM process, subject to the applicable requirements and any restriction affecting that employer.

However, a new process does not automatically preserve the previous application, priority date or other immigration benefits.

An Approved I-140 May Provide Additional Options

Priority-date retention is governed by separate rules. A qualifying approved employment-based immigrant petition may allow the worker to retain a priority date, subject to the applicable exceptions.

The employee should confirm whether an I-140 has been approved, whether the priority date is eligible for retention and whether any separate rule affects the proposed employment change.

Adjustment-of-Status Portability May Be Available

INA § 204(j) allows certain employment-based adjustment applicants to change jobs or employers without losing the ability to pursue adjustment of status, provided the statutory conditions are met.

USCIS addresses this in Policy Manual, Volume 7, Part E, Chapter 5: Job Portability after Adjustment Filing and Other AC21 Provisions.

In broad terms, portability may be available where the worker is the beneficiary of an approved I-140, or a qualifying petition that is ultimately approved, the adjustment-of-status application has been pending for at least 180 days, and the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification. Other conditions also apply.

This is not a universal right to transfer every green-card application. The status of the I-140, the adjustment application and the proposed job all matter.

Workers should obtain individual advice before accepting a new position or assuming that a new employer can continue the existing case unchanged.

13. What Can India Do?

India cannot direct the US Department of Labor to reopen a PERM application or override a US immigration decision.

However, the Indian government can raise concerns through diplomatic channels, seek clarification about the scope of the suspensions and encourage transparent procedures where Indian nationals and Indian-headquartered companies are affected.

The September 18 executive order and the October 8 PERM announcement also underline the importance of clear communication between the two countries about employment-based immigration, labour-market safeguards and legitimate cross-border business activity.

Any diplomatic engagement should focus on transparency, due process and predictable rules. It should not suggest that India can guarantee an individual worker’s immigration outcome.

For affected professionals, diplomatic representations are not a substitute for timely case-specific advice or compliance with US immigration deadlines.

Conclusion: The Written Decision and the Individual Case Matter Most

The October 8, 2026, PERM suspensions have created serious uncertainty for Indian IT professionals whose green-card plans depend on the affected employers. The September 18 executive order adds a separate layer of H-1B scrutiny connected with layoffs, making it even more important to distinguish between the relevant legal processes.

The central legal questions are straightforward but important: What written authority supports the suspension of each company? What factual basis was relied upon? Were the applicable procedures followed? And what options remain for workers at different stages of the immigration process?

The public allegations concerning layoffs warrant scrutiny, but they do not independently establish a violation of the PERM regulations. Equally, the absence of a detailed public explanation does not automatically make the suspension unlawful.

A PERM suspension does not, by itself, cancel an existing H-1B approval. Nevertheless, workers should review their status, deadlines, possible AC21 extensions and options for changing employers. Those with approved PERM certifications or I-140 petitions should establish exactly where their cases stand.

The most effective response is informed and timely action—not panic and not false reassurance.

Facing a US PERM Suspension or H-1B Immigration Problem? Get Legal Guidance Before You Decide Your Next Move

A delayed green card, a suspended PERM application or uncertainty about your H-1B status can put your career, family plans and future in the United States at risk. The wrong decision—or a missed immigration deadline—may create complications that could have been avoided with timely, case-specific legal advice.

Do not rely on rumours, social media updates or assumptions about what the suspension means for your individual case. Whether you are an Indian IT professional, an H-1B visa holder, an employer, an NRI or a family member concerned about an immigration-related legal issue, understanding your available options is the first step towards protecting your interests.

Speak with Adv. Tarun Choudhury, Supreme Court Advocate, with over 25 years of legal experience, for guidance on identifying the legal issues, evaluating your options and determining the appropriate next steps.

Why Seek Legal Guidance Now?

• PERM suspension and green-card delays: Understand the potential implications for your employment-based immigration process.
• H-1B visa concerns: Identify the questions you should raise about your current status, extension eligibility and immigration deadlines.
• Employer change and I-140 issues: Understand the legal considerations before making a career decision.
• Urgent immigration-related concerns: Organise your documents and identify the questions that require attention from qualified US immigration counsel.

Contact Adv. Tarun Choudhury

Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

• 📞 Call: 9650499965
• 💬 WhatsApp: 8851978611
• ✉️ Email: admin@legalserviceindia.com

Do not leave important immigration decisions to guesswork. Reach out to discuss your concerns and identify the next steps appropriate to your situation.

LegalServiceIndia.com — Informed decisions begin with the right legal guidance.

Note: US immigration matters may require advice or representation from a qualified US immigration attorney. The nature and scope of any consultation should be confirmed before engagement.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): US PERM Suspension 2026

1. What Does the US PERM Suspension in 2026 Mean for Indian IT Workers?

The US PERM suspension announced on October 8, 2026, affects the processing of employment-based labour certification applications involving the named technology companies. Indian IT workers may face delays in their green-card process, depending on the stage of their application and the scope of the formal suspension. Affected employees should confirm their individual case status and consult qualified US immigration counsel before making employment decisions.

2. Does the US PERM Suspension Affect H-1B Visa Status or Extensions?

A PERM suspension does not automatically cancel an existing H-1B approval or lawful immigration status. However, separate government actions may affect H-1B processing, and workers must continue to comply with their visa conditions and expiry dates. Eligible workers may qualify for H-1B extensions under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), subject to the applicable legal requirements.

3. Can an Indian IT Professional Change Employers During a PERM Suspension?

An Indian IT professional may be able to change employers, but the immigration consequences depend on the worker’s H-1B status, PERM application, approved I-140 petition and adjustment-of-status history. A pending PERM application cannot simply be transferred to a new employer. A new employer may need to initiate a separate PERM process, although certain qualifying workers may benefit from priority-date retention or adjustment-of-status portability.

4. Can a Company Challenge the US Department of Labor’s PERM Suspension?

Affected companies may be able to challenge a PERM suspension through available administrative or judicial remedies, depending on the formal decision and applicable law. Potential issues include whether the agency acted within its legal authority, followed required procedures and provided an adequate basis for the suspension. Judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act may be relevant, but success is not guaranteed and depends on the facts of the case.

5. What Should Indian Workers Do If Their PERM Application or Employment-Based Green Card Is Delayed?

Workers should confirm whether their PERM application is pending, approved or expressly covered by the suspension. They should check their H-1B expiry date, establish whether an I-140 petition has been filed or approved, preserve immigration documents and assess possible AC21 extension options. For case-specific guidance, contact Adv. Tarun Choudhury, Supreme Court Advocate, with over 25 years of legal experience, through LegalServiceIndia.com. Workers dealing with US immigration matters should also consult a qualified US immigration attorney.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes and is not individual US immigration advice. The effect of a suspension depends on the formal agency direction, the worker’s immigration history and the applicable law. Consult qualified US immigration counsel before making decisions about employment, status or an immigration filing.

Key Takeaways: US PERM Suspension 2026 and Its Impact on Indian IT Workers

• US PERM Suspension 2026: The suspension announced on October 8, 2026, involving eight technology companies has created uncertainty for foreign professionals pursuing employment-based green cards.
• Impact on Indian IT Workers: Affected employees may experience delays in PERM labour certification and subsequent green-card processing, depending on their individual case status and the scope of the suspension.
• PERM Suspension Does Not Automatically Cancel H-1B Status: A suspension of PERM processing does not, by itself, cancel an existing H-1B approval. Any separate restrictions on H-1B petitions must be assessed independently.
• US Layoff Rules and PERM Applications: Under 20 CFR § 656.17(k), certain employers that have conducted qualifying layoffs within six months before filing a PERM application must notify and consider potentially qualified laid-off US workers in the same or a related occupation and document the results.
• September 2026 H-1B Executive Order: A separate executive order issued on September 18, 2026, directs relevant US agencies to consider certain layoffs affecting similarly situated American workers when administering the H-1B programme.
• Legal Challenges to PERM Suspensions: Affected companies may explore administrative remedies or judicial review, including under the Administrative Procedure Act, depending on the formal suspension decision, the agency’s authority and the applicable procedural requirements.
• H-1B Extensions Under AC21: Eligible workers may qualify for one-year or certain three-year H-1B extensions, subject to statutory requirements, qualifying immigration filings and individual circumstances.
• Approved PERM Certification Has a Deadline: An approved PERM certification generally has a 180-calendar-day validity period for submission to USCIS in support of the relevant I-140 petition.
• Changing Employers During a PERM Suspension: A pending PERM application cannot simply be transferred to a new employer. A new employer may initiate a separate process, while certain qualifying workers may benefit from priority-date retention or adjustment-of-status portability.
• Cognizant and Cloudera Suspension: The September 2026 action involving Cognizant and Cloudera has a separate timeline. Its precise scope, including any effect on H-1B processing, should be verified from the relevant agency directions.
• Immediate Steps for Affected Workers: Confirm PERM and I-140 status, check H-1B expiry dates, preserve immigration records and obtain advice before changing employers or making significant immigration decisions.
• Seek Qualified Immigration Advice: Indian IT professionals should consult qualified US immigration counsel about their individual circumstances. LegalServiceIndia.com provides legal information and consultation services for complex legal issues.

Important: A PERM suspension is not, by itself, a final finding of fraud or a cancellation of every affected worker’s immigration benefits. The actual consequences depend on the written agency direction, the applicable law and the employee’s individual immigration history.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965