Rapid-Fire Wednesdays Podcast | L-1 Fees, PERM Overhaul & E-Verify Deadline

The transcript version of our weekly Q&A for corporate immigration professionals. Join our Immigration News Digest Newsletter for more immigration updates.

By Kimberley Best Robidoux & Miki Kawashima Matrician

🎧 Available on YouTube & Spotify

In this edition of Rapid-Fire Wednesdays, WR Immigration attorneys Kimberley Best Robidoux and Miki Kawashima Matrician discuss the latest developments affecting L-1 petition fees, proposed changes to the PERM labor certification process, and E-Verify record retention requirements.
Topics include the expanded applicability of the $4,500 L-1 fee for certain employers, potential changes to recruitment standards and employer obligations under PERM, speculation surrounding enhanced protections for U.S. workers affected by layoffs, and upcoming deadlines for preserving historical E-Verify records. Discover key immigration updates and practical considerations to help employers prepare for potential regulatory changes, coordinate immigration sponsorship with workforce decisions, and maintain employment verification compliance.

Question 1: What has changed regarding the L-1 fee for certain employers?

Response: USCIS issued updated guidance on October 27, 2026, addressing the $4,500 fee applicable to certain L-1 petitions. The relevant effective date is September 9, 2026. The fee applies to employers with at least 50 employees in the United States, where more than half of those employees hold H-1B or L-1 status. Both full-time and part-time employees count toward this calculation. Although the fee amount has not changed, its applicability has expanded. Previously, the fee applied to initial petitions and changes of employer. Under the updated guidance, it also applies to extension petitions. Amended petitions that do not request an extension remain exempt. Employers should coordinate with immigration counsel to evaluate their workforce composition, determine whether the fee applies, and account for the additional expense when budgeting for L-1 extensions.

Question 2: Which employers are subject to the L-1 fee, and how should HR prepare?

Response: The fee generally applies to petitioners with at least 50 U.S. employees, more than half of whom are in H-1B or L-1 status. Both part-time and full-time employees must be included in the calculation. The corresponding fee amounts remain $4,500 for L-1 petitions and $4,000 for H-1B petitions. For HR and Global Mobility teams, the key takeaway is to avoid assuming that an extension will carry the same fees as a company’s previous filing. Employers should work with immigration counsel to review workforce calculations, identify covered petitions, and incorporate applicable fees into extension budgets. The fee requirements should be evaluated before each submission.

Question 3: What is happening with the proposed PERM regulation changes?

Response: The Department of Labor (DOL) is pursuing a regulatory proposal titled “Modernizing the Labor Market Test and Improving Protections for U.S. Workers in the PERM Immigrant Visa Program.” The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) completed its review on October 23, 2026, moving the proposal forward in the regulatory process. However, OMB clearance does not mean the proposed changes are effective. DOL has identified several priorities, including updating recruitment standards, strengthening protections for U.S. workers affected by layoffs, and improving employer compliance with nondiscrimination and recordkeeping requirements. The agency has noted that PERM regulations have not undergone a comprehensive overhaul since 2004, despite substantial changes in recruitment practices and technology. Employers should continue following existing requirements until the actual proposed regulations are published.

Question 4: What potential changes to PERM recruitment requirements are being discussed?

Response: Although the proposed regulations have not yet been published, speculation within the immigration law community suggests that DOL may move further away from traditional newspaper advertising and toward electronic recruitment methods. Potential approaches could include employer websites, online job boards, social media, and other digital recruiting channels. Other possibilities include broader outreach requirements, more detailed advertising standards, and revised recruitment periods. These possibilities raise important questions for HR and Global Mobility teams, including which recruiting methods will qualify, what information advertisements must contain, how remote positions will be treated, and whether longer recruitment periods could affect sponsorship timelines. These details remain unconfirmed. Employers should continue complying with current recruitment requirements while evaluating how potential changes could affect their existing processes.

Question 5: How could the proposed PERM regulations affect employers following workforce layoffs?

Response: Strengthening protections for U.S. workers affected by layoffs is an expressly identified objective of DOL’s proposed regulatory changes. One possibility being discussed is a restriction on PERM filings following layoffs in the same or a similar occupation during the preceding 180 days. Other speculation includes extending notification and consideration obligations beyond the PERM filing date, potentially through the I-140 petition process, and requiring employers to affirmatively report layoffs to government agencies. These provisions have not been confirmed, and the actual proposal may include different requirements or exceptions. Nevertheless, employers should recognize the importance of coordinating immigration sponsorship with workforce reductions. HR, Global Mobility, recruiting teams, business leaders, and immigration counsel should communicate before making workforce decisions that could affect pending or anticipated PERM sponsorships.

Question 6: What additional employer accountability and compliance changes could be included in the PERM proposal?

Response: DOL has identified stronger compliance with nondiscrimination and record retention requirements as priorities for the proposed regulations. Additional possibilities being discussed include expanded notice requirements, clearer responsibilities for employers and their representatives, stronger recruitment certifications, greater investigative authority, and broader or longer debarment consequences. Some discussions have also raised the possibility of consequences extending to attorneys and agents. These details remain speculative until DOL publishes the proposed regulatory text. In the meantime, employers can take practical steps to review their recruitment documentation. HR teams should ensure that job requirements are clearly established, applicant evaluations are properly documented, and recruiting records consistently support the position the employer intends to sponsor. Maintaining accurate and complete documentation can help organizations prepare for potential changes without prematurely altering existing practices.

Question 7: Could the PERM regulations introduce changes to filing technology and administrative procedures?

Response: Potential changes being discussed include broader electronic filing requirements, electronic signatures, increased communications through the Foreign Labor Application Gateway (FLAG), and greater information sharing among federal agencies. Some of these developments could simplify administration, while others may require employers to update internal systems, access permissions, and document retention procedures. Until DOL publishes the actual proposed regulations, employers should not assume that these changes will reduce processing times or costs. HR and Global Mobility teams should consider whether their current recruitment systems, record keeping practices, and internal workflows could accommodate potential changes.

Question 8: What should HR and Global Mobility teams do while waiting for the proposed PERM regulations?procedures?

Response: Employers should continue following the PERM requirements currently in effect. OMB clearance alone is not a reason to change recruitment advertisements, stop sponsorship activity, or assume that pending cases will be subject to different rules. However, employers can begin evaluating areas that could be affected by future changes, including recruitment timelines, remote positions, layoffs, staffing arrangements, and the quality of their recruitment and retention records. Once the proposal is published, employers should review the actual requirements, public comment deadline, transition provisions, and treatment of cases already underway. HR and Global Mobility teams may also prepare concrete examples of how proposed changes could affect their organizations so they can provide meaningful feedback through the public comment process.

Question 9: What is the upcoming E-Verify record retention deadline, and which employers are affected?

Response: Employers that used E-Verify in 2016 or earlier should pay close attention to an upcoming deadline. USCIS has instructed employers to download the Historical Records Report covering E-Verify cases last updated on or before December 31, 2016, by January 8, 2027. USCIS plans to delete those historical records from its system on January 11, 2027. Once the records are deleted, employers will no longer be able to rely on E-Verify to retrieve that historical information. HR teams should assign responsibility for downloading the reports, confirm access to all relevant E-Verify accounts, including older company locations and accounts associated with former administrators, and coordinate with any third-party vendor managing E-Verify services.

Question 10: How should employers preserve historical E-Verify records before the January 2027 deadline?

Response: Employers should download the historical reports as soon as possible and securely retain them with their I-9 records. They should confirm that report entries can be connected to the corresponding employees and retrieved when needed. Employers should also review existing Form I-9 documentation to confirm that each employee’s form includes the E-Verify case verification number or has the case details page attached. This review provides an opportunity to identify missing information while the historical records remain accessible. Organizations using third-party E-Verify vendors should confirm who is responsible for retrieving and preserving the records. Setting an internal deadline well ahead of January 8, 2027, can help avoid last-minute access issues.

Question 11: Does the deletion of historical E-Verify records change an employer’s Form I-9 retention obligations?

Response: No. USCIS’s deletion of historical E-Verify records does not change an employer’s independent Form I-9 retention obligations. Employers must retain an employee’s Form I-9 throughout employment and, after employment ends, until the later of three years after the date of hire or one year after termination, subject to any applicable preservation obligations, including those arising from litigation. Employers also should not rerun E-Verify for existing employees simply because their historical verification cases are being deleted. The practical takeaway is to confirm account access, download and securely preserve historical reports, and ensure that the corresponding I-9 documentation is complete and accessible in preparation for potential government audits.

About the Authors

Kimberley Best Robidoux is a Partner in WR Immigration’s San Diego office with 25+ years of experience advising employers and individuals on business immigration, immigration compliance, and I-9 and E-Verify matters. She currently serves as the Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Verification and Documentation Committee and has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America®, Super Lawyers®, Who’s Who Legal: Corporate Immigration, Lawdragon and other leading publications.

Miki Kawashima Matrician is Co-Managing Partner of WR Immigration’s Boston office, where she advises employers on business immigration, corporate immigration policies, compliance, and risk management. She teaches Business Immigration Law at Boston University School of Law and is recognized by Chambers®, Super Lawyers®, and Best Lawyers® for her immigration expertise. She co-hosts WR Immigration’s monthly Chatting with Charlie Visa Bulletin Reactions and quarterly webinars alongside Charlie Oppenheim.