PERM labor certification is a critical step in the employment-based green card process. In order to sponsor a foreign national for permanent residence, the PERM process requires employers to test the U.S. labor market in good faith to ensure that no willing, able, minimally qualified, and available U.S. worker is found for the sponsored position. This involves multiple Department of Labor (DOL) mandated recruitment steps including job advertisements, internal postings, and a good faith effort to consider U.S. applicants. While this obligation has long been central to the program, recent enforcement trends reflect increased scrutiny of how employers carry out recruitment in practice, not just whether the required procedural steps are completed.

Compliance risks arise when the recruitment process, intentionally or unintentionally, appears structured to favor a specific foreign worker or discourages U.S. applicants from applying. Even when technical PERM requirements are met, the Department of Justice (DOJ) may still examine whether the process violated broader anti-discrimination provisions under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

A primary area of concern is whether recruitment is truly open and accessible to U.S. workers. Employers must ensure that job opportunities are presented in a manner consistent with standard hiring practices and that application procedures do not create unnecessary barriers. For example, requiring applicants to apply through more stringent methods or tailoring job requirements too narrowly to align with a foreign worker’s background can raise red flags. Closely related is the risk of inconsistent hiring practices, where PERM recruitment is treated as a separate or more restrictive process compared to regular hiring. Discrepancies such as requiring applications in a different format or applying more stringent screening criteria can suggest that U.S. applicants were not given a fair opportunity.

Another significant compliance issue involves the appearance of pre-selection. Although PERM sponsorship inherently involves a known foreign national beneficiary, employers must ensure that recruitment is not structured in a way that effectively discourages or excludes qualified U.S. workers. Overly specific or unjustified job requirements, limited or ineffective recruitment channels, and a lack of meaningful consideration of U.S. applicants are all factors that may contribute to heightened scrutiny. Taken together, these practices can raise concerns that the recruitment process did not provide a genuine competitive opportunity for U.S. workers, even where formal PERM steps were completed.

Further, thorough documentation is critical to mitigating audit and enforcement risks. Employers are required to maintain detailed records of all recruitment efforts, including copies of job advertisements, resumes received, pre-screening materials, recruitment reports, and lawful, job-related reasons for rejecting U.S. applicants. In the event of an audit or investigation, incomplete, inconsistent, or poorly organized documentation can significantly increase exposure to liability. Taken together, these factors underscore that PERM compliance is not merely a procedural exercise, but a substantive obligation requiring transparency, consistency, and demonstrable good faith throughout the recruitment process.

Enforcement Trends: What Recent Cases Signal

While PERM compliance issues are not new, enforcement activity highlights a more aggressive regulatory approach. For example, in several high-profile matters, the government has examined whether employers structured recruitment in ways that effectively limited opportunities for U.S. workers. Enforcement actions involving companies like Apple, Facebook, and most recently Cloudera provide examples of how the government evaluates PERM recruitment beyond mere technical compliance and illustrate the types of practices that can trigger liability under the INA. These cases demonstrate a consistent theme: even where employers follow the formal PERM steps, recruitment practices that deviate from normal hiring procedures can be viewed as discriminatory.

In the case of Facebook, the DOJ alleged that the company effectively created a separate and less accessible recruitment process for PERM roles. Specifically, Facebook was accused of reserving certain positions for temporary visa holders and using recruiting methods that deterred U.S. workers, such as requiring applications to be submitted by mail only, failing to advertise positions on its standard careers website, and refusing to consider qualified U.S. applicants who did apply. The DOJ concluded that these practices amounted to intentional discrimination based on citizenship status, ultimately resulting in a settlement exceeding $14 million and requiring Facebook to align its PERM recruitment with its standard hiring practices, including broader advertising and acceptance of electronic applications.

Similarly, the Apple case reinforces that even technical compliance with DOL PERM regulations does not protect employers from anti-discrimination liability. The DOJ found that Apple used recruitment procedures for PERM roles that were less effective than its standard hiring methods, including not posting positions on its external careers website and requiring paper applications instead of electronic submissions. These practices resulted in little to no applications from U.S. workers, effectively discouraging potentially qualified U.S. workers from applying. The government also alleged that Apple failed to consider certain candidates who applied through normal internal electronic systems, as opposed to applying by mail. Apple ultimately agreed to a $25 million settlement along with enhanced compliance measures, monitoring, and alignment of PERM recruitment with its regular hiring processes. The Facebook and Apple cases highlight how deviations from normal recruiting channels, particularly those that reduce accessibility, can be interpreted as evidence that the process was not genuinely open to U.S. workers.

More recently in April 2026, the DOJ announced a federal lawsuit against Cloudera, Inc., alleging that Cloudera excluded U.S. workers from applying to high-paying technology roles by structuring its PERM recruitment process in a way that favored foreign workers. Specifically, the government claims that Cloudera:

• Created a separate recruitment process that deterred U.S. workers
• Failed to consider U.S. applicants for certain roles
• And notably, directed applicants to an email account that could not receive external emails, effectively preventing applications from being submitted (which would indicate a complete lack of compliance with PERM regulations).

Although the factual specifics differ, the underlying principle is consistent with Apple and Facebook:  the government is closely examining not only whether recruitment practices comply with PERM regulations, but also whether those practices, in substance, satisfy broader anti-discrimination obligations under the INA.

Practical Compliance Steps for Employers

Employers pursuing permanent residence sponsorship through the PERM labor certification process must take a comprehensive approach to compliance, ensuring adherence not only to DOL PERM regulations, but also to federal anti-discrimination provisions under the INA. Recent enforcement actions highlight that satisfying the technical requirements of PERM, such as placing the required advertisements for the mandated duration, does not, by itself, shield employers from liability. In the Apple case, for example, the Department of Justice signaled that even where an employer meets the letter of PERM regulations, the overall recruitment strategy may still be scrutinized if it appears to discourage or limit access for U.S. workers.

From a regulatory standpoint, PERM provides employers with a degree of flexibility in how recruitment is conducted. For example, the regulations require employers to direct applicants on how to apply, but they do not prescribe a specific application method. Similarly, for professional positions, employers must complete three additional recruitment steps from a list of ten options provided by the DOL, without strict guidance on which methods must be selected. While this flexibility allows employers to tailor recruitment to their business needs, it also creates compliance risk if those choices result in a process that is less accessible or less effective than standard hiring practices. As enforcement trends demonstrate, regulators may view such outcomes as inconsistent with the intent of the PERM program, even if the formal requirements are technically met.

To reduce compliance risk, employers should take proactive steps to align PERM recruitment with their regular hiring practices as closely as possible. At the same time, it is important to recognize that certain PERM requirements, such as placing job advertisements in a print newspaper of general circulation within the area of intended employment for two Sundays, may differ from modern recruiting norms. While these methods may appear outdated or less effective compared to digital recruiting channels, they are mandated by Department of Labor regulations. As a result, employers must balance strict regulatory compliance with a good faith effort to ensure that recruitment remains accessible and consistent with their typical hiring practices.

Accordingly, employers should consider the following best practices to help ensure PERM recruitment processes remain both compliant and defensible:

• Maintain a consistent focus on the “good faith recruitment” standard throughout the PERM process, which has always been a cornerstone of the process.
• Ensure that application procedures are fully accessible to U.S. workers and do not create unnecessary barriers to application
• Clearly document the business necessity for job requirements
• Evaluate all applicants fairly against the minimum requirements and maintaining lawful, job-related reasons for any rejections
• Ensure a complete recruitment report and audit file is prepared prior to filing the PERM application
• Periodically review PERM recruitment strategies to confirm that, to the extent possible, they align with standard hiring practices, while still accommodating PERM-specific requirements that may differ from normal procedures
• Train HR and recruiting teams on PERM-specific compliance obligations as well as broader anti-discrimination requirements
• Work closely with experienced immigration counsel to navigate these complexities and structure recruitment processes that satisfy both the letter and the spirit of the law

PERM labor certification remains a lawful and essential pathway for sponsoring foreign talent, but it operates within a tightly regulated compliance environment. As enforcement continues to evolve, employers should expect greater scrutiny of recruitment design, consistency, and documentation. By prioritizing transparency, consistency, and good faith evaluation of all applicants, organizations can better ensure that their PERM practices withstand regulatory scrutiny while supporting lawful and effective talent sponsorship.

By: Krystal Alanis

Krystal Alanis is a Partner at Reddy Neumann Brown PC and serves as the Managing Attorney of the firm’s PERM Labor Certification Department, where she oversees all EB-2 and EB-3 employment-based green card matters. With over 14 years of experience, she advises employers and professionals on navigating complex business immigration processes with clarity and confidence. She has managed countless PERM applications across a wide range of industries, enabling her to anticipate challenges early and develop effective, efficient solutions.