U.S. Immigration Alerts

FGI UPDATE: This Week’s Summary of U.S. Immigration News

U.S. Immigration Updates  

Department of Labor updates PERM and PWD processing times 

for April 2026

The Department of Labor (DOL) has updated its processing times for prevailing wage determinations (PWD) and PERM applications for April 2026:

• DOL has been processing H-1B prevailing wage determinations (PWDs) filed in January 2026 (OEWS and Non-OEWS), or earlier. 
• DOL has been processing PWDs for PERMs filed in January 2026 (OEWS and non-OEWS), or earlier.
• DOL has been processing H-1B redeterminations filed in January 2026 or earlier. 
• DOL has been processing PERM redeterminations filed in December 2025 or earlier. 
• DOL has not provided processing times for H-1B Center Director Reviews.
• DOL has been processing PERM Center Director reviews requested in January 2026 or earlier.

PERM priority dates and average number of days to process applications:

PERM Processing Times as of March 12, 2026

Average Number of Days to Process PERM Applications

SOURCE: flag.dol.gov/processingtimes

Spike in Labor Department Immigration Enforcement Targets Employers

The U.S. Department of Labor is significantly increasing enforcement of immigration rules, especially for H-1B visa employers, through a new initiative called “Project Firewall.” Investigations have surged, with more site visits and complex audits, shifting from complaint-based enforcement to proactive, government-driven scrutiny. This means companies that hire foreign workers are now facing more aggressive and technical reviews, often powered by data analytics and artificial intelligence, raising the stakes for compliance.

Key Points

• Sharp Increase in Investigations Employers are seeing a major rise in enforcement activity, with H-1B investigations increasing by about 48% since the launch of Project Firewall. This reflects a broader push by the Department of Labor to more actively monitor employer compliance rather than waiting for complaints. 
• Shift to Proactive Enforcement The government is no longer relying primarily on worker complaints to trigger investigations. Instead, it is initiating its own cases internally, making enforcement less predictable and harder for employers to anticipate. 
• Focus on Technical Violations Enforcement efforts are targeting highly technical compliance issues, not just obvious fraud, or abuse. Even minor or procedural mistakes can now trigger penalties, increasing risk for employers. 
• Use of AI and Data Analytics Authorities are leveraging advanced technology, including AI systems, to identify potential violations. This allows regulators to analyze substantial amounts of employer data and conduct more sophisticated investigations. 
• Cross-Agency Coordination Project Firewall involves collaboration across multiple government agencies, improving efficiency and expanding enforcement reach. This coordinated approach increases the likelihood of detection and enforcement actions.

What Employers Need to Know

• Increased Likelihood of Site Visits Employers should expect more frequent on-site inspections and audits. These visits may involve detailed questioning and document requests that go beyond traditional compliance checks. 
• Higher Compliance Burden Companies must ensure strict adherence to all H-1B program requirements, including wage levels, job duties, and documentation. Even small inconsistencies can now result in penalties or program disqualification. 
• Greater Risk of Penalties Violations can lead to fines or even debarment from the H-1B program. This creates significant operational and reputational risks for businesses relying on foreign talent. 
• Need for Internal Audits Employers should proactively review their immigration practices and records. Conducting internal compliance audits can help identify and correct issues before regulators do. 
• Preparation for Complex Requests Government inquiries are becoming more data-driven and technical. Employers must be prepared to respond with detailed, well-documented evidence supporting their compliance.

Looking Ahead

• Continued Expansion of Enforcement: The current trend suggests that immigration enforcement will remain a priority, particularly for high-skilled visa programs like H-1B. Employers should expect ongoing scrutiny and possibly even stricter rules. 
• Regulatory Changes on the Horizon: Proposed changes, such as restructuring oversight of foreign labor certification, could further streamline enforcement and increase government control. 
• Greater Role of Technology: The use of AI and data analytics is likely to grow, making enforcement faster and more precise. This could reduce the margin for error in employer compliance. 
• Broader Impact Beyond Tech Industry: While tech companies are heavily affected, other sectors using H-1B workers—such as healthcare, finance, and education—will also face heightened scrutiny.

In sum, DOL’s intensified immigration enforcement marks a major shift toward proactive, technology-driven oversight of employers using foreign labor. With more investigations, stricter scrutiny, and higher risks of penalties, businesses must take a far more rigorous approach to compliance to avoid costly consequences

AILA Practice Pointer – Identifying USCIS Use of AI in Adjudications

AILA recently published a practice pointer concerning the USCIS’s rule of AI (artificial intelligence) in adjudicatory and adjudication-adjacent workflows. Below are the top ten key points:

• AI Is Already Embedded in USCIS Adjudications: USCIS actively uses AI and machine-learning tools across adjudicatory workflows. Even when human officers issue final decisions, AI systems significantly shape how cases are reviewed and evaluated. 
• AI Introduces Predictable Error Patterns: These systems can generate recurring errors in areas like identity matching, family relationship inference, facial recognition, and text analytics. Such errors are not random—they reflect known technical limitations that can systematically affect outcomes. 
• Focus on Identifying and Correcting Errors: The key legal issue is not whether AI use is permitted, but how practitioners can detect, document, and challenge AI-driven mistakes. Existing legal mechanisms remain fully applicable to these errors. 
• AI Shapes the Decision-Making Environment: AI tools influence what information is surfaced, prioritized, or interpreted during adjudication. As a result, flawed AI outputs can directly impact how a case is decided, even with human oversight. 
• Watch for Adjudicatory Anomalies: Red flags include decisions that are inconsistent, unsupported by evidence, or based on incorrect identities or relationships. These anomalies often align with known failure points in AI systems. 
• Matching vs. Clustering Errors Are Key Risks: Matching algorithms may incorrectly link one person’s data to another, while clustering algorithms may group unrelated individuals or facts together. Both can result in serious factual inaccuracies in immigration decisions. 
• Inactive AI Tools May Still Affect Outcomes: Even if an AI system is later labeled “inactive,” its outputs may persist in case files. These residual data points can continue to influence adjudications long after the tool is retired. 
• Use AI Tools to Analyze Government Decisions: Commercial AI analyzers—such as those using natural language processing, bias detection, or explainable AI—can help identify patterns of automated reasoning or hallucination. When documented properly, these analyses can support arguments that a decision reflects AI-related error. 
• Build the Record Through FOIA and Evidence Development: When a decision appears illogical or unsupported, FOIA or Privacy Act requests should seek adjudicator notes, routing histories, and evidence of automated processing. Even partial disclosures can help establish whether AI influenced the outcome. 
• Adapt Advocacy, Drafting, and Client Counseling for AI Reality: Legal briefs should clearly restate legal standards, walk through evidence step by step, and correct erroneous assumptions, recognizing they may be reviewed by both humans and AI systems. This approach can help “re-inform” flawed outputs while strengthening the record. At the same time, attorneys should counsel clients on data awareness and digital footprints, as personal data may propagate across interconnected systems and affect adjudications.

SOURCE: AILA Doc. No. 26040161: www.aila.org/recent-postings?FromDate=2026-03-31&ToDate=2026-04-02&limit=50

The content of this article is intended only to provide a general guide to the subject matter. It should not be construed as legal advice. Please contact FGI at info@employmentimmigration.com or (+1) 248.643.4900 for guidance if you have specific questions.