Immigration & Mobility

Subscribe to Immigration & Mobility via RSS

The immigration landscape for U.S. employers has shifted dramatically. The past six months alone have produced escalating enforcement activity, sweeping proposed changes to temporary visa categories, and reshaped adjudication standards — all while active litigation continues to alter the legal picture in real time. Below are five critical developments and recommended action items for each.

1. SURGE IN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS

Employer-facing immigration enforcement has reached levels not seen in recent memory. ICE’s rate of Notices of Inspection (NOIs) for I-9 audits has increased significantly, and DHS has broadly expanded the types of I-9 violations that can result in immediate fines.

The Department of Labor has suspended PERM labor certification processing for several major employers while also launching “Project Firewall,” which gives the Secretary of Labor broad discretion to target employers for H-1B compliance investigations.

The State Department’s Fraud Unit has also greatly expanded investigations of U.S. employers involving visa fraud at U.S. consulates.

What Employers Should Do:

  • Conduct audits of I-9s (including a review of audit-trail sufficiency for electronic platforms),  PERM audit files, and H-1B public access files.
  • Review PERM recruitment methodology and strategy to ensure compliance with current enforcement trends.
  • Establish a protocol for responding to government site visits or subpoenas.

2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE H-1B PROGRAM

The H-1B program faces its most significant restructuring in decades. On August 25, 2026, DHS proposed an additional $103,265 fee for cap-subject H-1B petitions — on top of the existing $100,000 Presidential Proclamation fee (currently subject to litigation; see Section 5 below).

In October 2026, DHS also proposed a regulation that would eliminate the 60-day grace period for H-1B (and other) workers whose employment is terminated. If finalized, the rule would effectively require departure from the country immediately upon termination, without an opportunity to seek new employment or change immigration status.

What Employers Should Do:

  • Begin assembling your H-1B cap list earlier than usual (i.e., now) and assess wage-level classifications in light of the weighted lottery.
  • Model the financial impact of potential cumulative fees on your H-1B budget and determine company policy should the fees take effect this cap season despite potential litigation.
Continue Reading Five Immigration Developments That Will Define Employer Compliance in 2026

In today’s M&A market, carve-out transactions remain one of the most important tools for private equity sponsors and strategic acquirers seeking to acquire high-value businesses from larger corporate groups. Yet while the commercial rationale may be straightforward, workforce execution rarely is. In global carve-outs, workforce issues often become the difference between a transaction that merely closes and a transaction that actually delivers. In our experience, workforce issues are rarely the reason a carve-out is pursued, but they are frequently the reason a transaction becomes more expensive, more complex, or slower to close than expected – all outcomes which can avoided with careful planning. A carve-out is rarely a simple transfer of employees, contracts and assets. More commonly, it requires separating a business that has been deeply embedded within a seller’s global operating structure, with shared employees, shared systems, centralized payroll functions, common benefit plans, employee representative obligations and differing transfer requirements across jurisdictions.

The key challenge is not identifying every workforce issue before signing – that’s impossible. The challenge is identifying the workforce issues that most likely impact deal certainty, closing timelines, costs, or Day 1 operations and building a practical execution plan around them. Most of these workforce issues ultimately stem from three fundamental questions:

  1. Who actually supports the business?
  2. How do those individuals move from Seller to Buyer?
  3. What must be operational on Day 1 for the business to function?

In practice, these questions often arise under intense time pressure, when the deal team is simultaneously negotiating transaction documents, building a TSA, standing up local employer infrastructure, managing employee communications and trying to preserve critical talent. That is why workforce planning needs to start early and be treated as part of the core separation strategy.

Question 1: Who Actually Supports the Business?

The first workforce question in any carve-out sounds simple: Who is part of the business being sold? In practice, it is often one of the most important and complex exercises in the entire transaction.

Continue Reading Global Carve-Outs: Why Workforce Execution Is Often the Critical Path

We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Asia Pacific, Canada, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Click here to view.

Recent developments affecting Temporary Protected Status (TPS)[1] beneficiaries have created uncertainty for employers managing work authorization and reverification obligations. In response, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has reminded employers that changes affecting TPS beneficiaries do not change employers’ existing obligations under federal and California law. The guidance underscores a key compliance point: employers should not assume that an employee whose TPS designation has been affected is no longer authorized to work, and employers must continue to follow standard I-9, reverification, anti-discrimination, and anti-retaliation requirements.

The guidance reflects California’s longstanding approach of reinforcing workplace protections for immigrant workers during periods of federal immigration policy change. While TPS-related developments may create uncertainty for employers, the Attorney General’s message is that employers should continue to follow existing verification and reverification rules rather than impose additional requirements or take adverse action based on assumptions regarding an employee’s immigration status. The guidance further encourages employers to consult immigration counsel before acting based on an employee’s TPS status, recognizing that affected employees may remain authorized to work through another immigration status, a pending application, or another provision of law.

Among other things, the guidance reminds employers:

  • To follow current employment verification requirements. Employers must complete the Form I-9 to verify an employee’s identity and authorization to work in the United States and should monitor USCIS and E-Verify for current TPS termination and work authorization expiration dates.
  • That employment authorization may remain valid beyond the expiration date shown on a work permit. Employers should not rely solely on the expiration date printed on an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). Work authorization may be automatically extended through a Federal Register notice, USCIS notice, court order, or applicable DHS regulations. Before acting based on an apparent expiration date, employers should confirm whether an automatic extension or another basis for continued work authorization applies.
Continue Reading California Reminds Employers: TPS Changes Do Not Alter Workplace Obligations
  • An overview of key global immigration and mobility issues to consider related to immigration, employment, compensation
…

Our attorneys examine how Venezuela and key neighboring jurisdictions—particularly Colombia—are reshaping immigration, employment, and workforce compliance frameworks in response to renewed business activity in the region. The panel explores evolving visa pathways, transnational teleworking models, and employer obligations under Colombian and Venezuelan law, highlighting how these developments are influencing mobility strategies, cross‑border staffing structures, and…

Immigration authorities across APAC are stepping up enforcement activity, with employers increasingly facing unannounced inspections and on‑site investigations. Our Global Immigration and Mobility attorneys examine the trends driving increased immigration authority activity in the region, with a particular focus on Malaysia and Vietnam. The panel discusses how these enforcement actions typically unfold, common triggers, potential…

ICE, in a “fact sheet” available on its website, has made a significant change to the way it conducts I-9 audits. Specifically, ICE has broadened what it considers to be a “substantive” violation on an I-9. This change is likely to increase the financial penalties employers face during an audit, impacting all employers (including those who have already conducted an internal audit). This change to ICE’s protocol may signal increased enforcement in the coming weeks and months. 

Key Takeaways

In response to this change, employers should: 

  • Conduct an I-9 audit to determine potential penalties under the new guidelines and determine which, if any, substantive errors can be rehabilitated.
  • Conduct internal training to ensure the company has an established I-9 protocol and team to ensure the process is being completed accurately and in a timely manner.
  • Create a protocol for the handling of I-9 audits at the worksite should ICE issue a subpoena.

In more detail

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), enacted on November 6, 1986, requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of their employees and sets forth criminal and civil sanctions for employment-related violations. During an I-9 audit, ICE reviews the accuracy and completeness of an employer’s I-9s to determine the volume of: (i) missing I-9s; (ii) technical violations; and (iii) substantive violations. ICE must permit employers to correct technical violations before issuing a fine; a substantive violation is cause for a fine without opportunity for rehabilitation. Fines range from $288 to $2,861 per I-9 violation.

Continue Reading Changes to I-9 Penalties Increase Employer Liability

By February 1, 2026, employers must give California employees a notice explaining their constitutional rights when interacting with law enforcement at the workplace, their immigration rights and protections, their rights to workers’ compensation benefits, their rights to organize or engaged in concerted activity, and other “new legal developments.” And by March 30, 2026, employers must…