As Park Advertising closely monitors State Workforce Agency (SWA) updates, we want to keep our clients and partners informed about changes that may impact recruitment and compliance processes.
One of the most important requirements companies face when hiring foreign employees is posting job openings with the appropriate SWA portal in the state where the job will be performed. These postings ensure that local job seekers have fair access to available opportunities and help employers meet Department of Labor (DOL) recruitment guidelines.
While the DOL requires job orders to remain live for 30 consecutive days, each state has its own set of rules and requirements that must be followed. Some require salary ranges, others request benefit details, and some others may include occupation-specific instructions. Because of these differences, staying aware of updates from each state is essential — especially for employers navigating the PERM certification world.
Recently, New York State announced a significant transition. The long-used NYS Job Bank Self-Service portal is being retired and replaced by a more modern system known as the New York State Virtual Career Center (NYS VCC).
The new platform was designed to enhance the posting experience by offering a more intuitive interface and improved tools. One standout feature is the use of AI-assisted matching, which helps employers identify qualified candidates more efficiently and streamline the hiring process. New York also provided training and guidance to assist employers during this transition period. While older postings will continue to run until their expiration dates, all employers must register their companies on the new NYS VCC system by December 31, which is when the NYS Job Bank platform will be discontinued.
New York is not alone in this shift. Throughout 2025, several states — including Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Texas, and many others — either updated their original portals or transitioned to completely new platforms with more advanced technology focusing on simplifying job posting procedures and integrating AI tools to better support both employers and job seekers.
At Park Advertising, we always try to stay in touch with SWA teams across the country to provide our clients and partners with the most accurate, up-to-date information. If you have questions about registering on the new NYS VCC platform or adapting to these changes, our team is here to help. Our goal is to support you as these systems evolve and help you navigate any changes with confidence.
Here we have some useful links:
- The DOL + NY VCC Home page: NY DOL VCC Home
- Here’s the link to set up the new account on NYS VCC: NYS VCC Registration
- Once the new account is ready, you will be able to log in from this link: Login | Eightfold
- Here’s the page where you can see posted jobs and get screenshots: Jobseeker Page
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is the latest major daily newspaper to transition to digital only, with its final print edition scheduled for December 31, 2025. This raises concerns for PERM recruitment in the Atlanta metro area, since current regulations do not allow digital editions to satisfy the requirement for two separate Sunday ads in a newspaper of general circulation. So, what happens now?
When a paper announces it is going digital, the Park team immediately begins researching alternative options for every affected area. We contact all available newspapers in each market and confirm their circulation and print schedules to ensure we have accurate options for clients. For example, in Cobb County, Georgia, where the AJC was previously used, we will begin recommending the Marietta Daily Journal weekend edition.
A major daily like the AJC may be the only Sunday print edition circulating in certain areas. While we aim to identify Sunday options where available, some regions may only have weekday or Saturday print editions going forward.
We’ve gone through this process before, including in 2023 with the paper of record for Mobile, Alabama, and more recently with New Jersey’s Star-Ledger and other Advance Local papers. For the Star-Ledger, we now recommend the New York Times for certain New Jersey locations like Union County. Other counties have multiple options. In Middlesex County, we provide circulation details for both the Home News Tribune and the New York Times so clients can choose based on preference.
By staying current on circulation and print information for hundreds of newspapers, we help our clients stay informed and prepared as these industry shifts occur. This is one of the many perks of having Park on your recruitment team.
If you have any questions, please reach out to [email protected] for your specific case.
Even the most impressive, highly qualified applicants can receive RFEs on their Extraordinary Ability visa cases. This doesn’t mean they lack achievement, but the evidence package may not explain or verify candidates’ accomplishments in ways immigration officers expect.
The good news? Many RFEs stem from predictable issues that a well-crafted expert opinion letter can address. Some of these common RFE triggers include:
Achievements that don’t appear extraordinary
Applicants list impressive accomplishments, but without proper context, USCIS may view evidence as commonplace for someone in their field. Adjudicators need to see how the work stands out and why it’s rare, influential, or groundbreaking.
Indication of international acclaim and reputation, as a result of the candidate’s accomplishments in their field, aids in reaching a successful determination by USCIS, especially as it pertains to meeting the Final Merits hurdle.
Accomplishments that are novel and original may not be successful in meeting the goal of showcasing the candidate’s international acclaim and reputation if their achievements seem to operate in a silo or have not greatly impacted the field at large, which usually results from accomplishments that merely aid the candidate’s employer.
Weak or generic recommendation letters
One of the most common triggers for RFEs is recommendation letters that sound templated or vague. Praise that lacks a sense of objective authority or indicates a level of personal bias gives the sense that certain recommendation letters are from personal acquaintances rather than professional colleagues. USCIS discounts this kind of praise and wants to see objective, authoritative evaluations.
Having recommendation letters from other expert peers in the candidate’s field is the most impactful. This is especially so when these letters specifically name achievements and then go into detail on the originality and usefulness of the achievements.
Recommendation letters that focus on the advancements and achievements of the company the candidate works for do not usually bode well. In other words, having recommendation letters that focus on what the candidate did to advance a company, instead of the field at large, can trigger an RFE.
Lack of proof of impact
USCIS expects a candidate’s indicated value to go beyond participation or surface-level recognition to demonstrate a substantial, palpable impact on the candidate’s respective field. For example, officers look for whether other professionals in the field have adopted, cited, or built upon the candidate’s work.
A citations argument is usually helpful here. This means that the candidate’s citations found on their Google Scholar page can build an argument that their work has been cited and built upon. In fact, the citations found on Google Scholar can indicate where their peers are from on an international scale, demonstrating who and where their work has made an impact.
Unfortunately, when it comes to patents, they are not always well received by USCIS. A typical argument by USCIS in reference to patents has been in regard to the lack of information it provides as it pertains to who is building upon this invention or who has cited it. Thankfully, Google Patents can help find this information out, but this usually just works for U.S. patents. When it comes to patents from overseas, it may be harder to trace citations down.
Misconceptions about the published material criteria
The applicant’s own research papers, conference papers, blog posts, etc. do not meet the published material criteria. Published material falls under what other professionals have written about the candidate’s work and accomplishments, not what the candidate themselves has published.
An article from a reputable source within the candidate’s field that explicitly names the candidate and his accomplishments within his/her specific field would meet this criterion. For instance, if the candidate is an expert in AI, having an article on their work in AI, specifically naming them and their accomplishments in “AI Magazine” would stand as credible and strong evidence.
An article from a reputable source that merely speaks of the accomplishments of a whole organization but does not name the candidate explicitly may fall flat. Such a disconnect leaves USCIS open to argue that there is no proof that the candidate was a part of this accomplishment.
A well-crafted expert opinion letter can be the key to overcoming the most common RFE triggers in extraordinary ability visa cases. Want to request a sample? Reach out to our team today at [email protected]
By: Shela Ward
When it comes to U.S. immigration, most employment-based green card applicants face a big hurdle in proving there aren’t qualified American workers available for the job. The standard PERM labor certification process can be long, complicated, and stressful, involving a time-consuming labor market test. Schedule A Group II is a special category of green cards that provides a shortcut for certain individuals with exceptional ability in the sciences or arts.
What is Schedule A Group II?
Instead of going through the lengthy recruitment process, Schedule A Group II allows employers to sponsor individuals directly for a green card. To qualify, the individual must receive a job offer for a position requiring their exceptional ability and demonstrate proof of their exceptional achievements such as awards, original contributions, or widespread coverage of their work.
Unlike many other visa types, Schedule A Group II does not allow individuals to self-sponsor. Instead, they must be sponsored by an employer, and the employer must attest to paying prevailing wages.
In April 2024, USCIS updated its policy to expand the definition of qualifying occupations for Schedule A Group II filings, making this path more accessible to a wider range of people. Since then, there’s been an uptick in applications for Schedule A Group II as many rush to take advantage of this faster path to permanent residency.
How Park is Handling Schedule A Group II Cases
At Park Evaluations, we stay on top of trends in immigration filing practices so we can help you and your clients navigate the Schedule A Group II process to secure approval. In a recently approved case, we supplied an expert opinion letter for a candidate with exceptional ability in the sciences, specifically in artificial intelligence and machine learning in portfolio management.
In this letter, we discussed two of the exceptional ability criteria for this candidate: original scientific contributions and participation as a judge of the work of others in the field. We gathered information about the candidate’s work, including testimonies from the candidate’s professional acquaintances and evidence of their service on various industry panels. We also conducted independent research into the national impacts of the candidate’s work such as economic benefits and technological innovation.
Expert opinion letters are an important piece of a permanent residency case, as they give independent, third-party insight into an individual’s exceptional ability. They’re an opportunity to showcase your client’s status within their field while also proving the national importance of their work, and they give your client’s application more credibility.
To get started with an expert opinion letter for your client’s Schedule A Group II case, or to determine if this is the best strategy for your client, reach out to us today.
By: Anna Martins Longo Pereira
The PERM labor certification process may feel like a box-checking exercise today, but its history reflects decades of effort by the U.S. government to strike a balance between meeting economic needs and protecting opportunities for U.S. workers. To understand where PERM stands now—and why it matters so much for employment-based immigration—it helps to trace how we got here.
The Early Roots of Labor Certification
Labor certification was born out of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. Section 212(a)(b) required that foreign workers could only be hired when no qualified, willing, and available U.S. worker existed, and that wages would not be undercut. Employers needed to test the U.S. labor market to prove those conditions, laying the groundwork for what would later become today’s PERM system.
The Immigration Act of 1990 further expanded the framework. It introduced the EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 immigrant visa categories, as well as the Diversity Visa Lottery, while strengthening labor certification as a core requirement (with limited exceptions such as EB-1 and the National Interest Waiver).
Before PERM: TLC and RIR
Before PERM, two systems were in play:
- Traditional Labor Certification (TLC): A paper-based process overseen by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). Employers submitted ETA Form 750, ran mandatory recruitment (two Sunday newspaper ads, a 30-day SWA job order, plus additional steps like internal postings), and awaited review by a Certifying Officer.
- Reduction in Recruitment (RIR): Introduced in the 1980s as a faster option, RIR allowed employers to bypass some recruitment steps if they could show proof of prior recruitment, such as resumes and rejection logs.
While RIR streamlined things, both systems were slow. By the early 2000s, processing times stretched from one to three years, and a backlog of 325,000 cases piled up.
The Push for Reform
In 2001, the Office of Inspector General flagged major vulnerabilities in the labor certification system, including:
- Inconsistent employer compliance
- Ineffective labor market tests
- Backlogs and delays
- Lack of oversight on whether workers stayed with the sponsoring employer
The Department of Labor responded by creating the PERM system, officially launched in 2005.
PERM: A Streamlined Approach
PERM standardized and digitized the process, introducing clear rules that are still in place today:
- Employers must meet or exceed the prevailing wage
- Compensation cannot rely on commissions or bonuses
- Jobs must be open to all qualified U.S. workers, free of discrimination
- Job opportunities cannot be tied to labor disputes
- Recruitment must demonstrate the role is genuinely available
How PERM Has Evolved Since 2005
While the core process has remained steady, enforcement priorities have shifted:
- 2005–2015: Focus on speed, efficiency, and standardization
- 2015–present: Greater emphasis on fraud prevention and integrity checks
The numbers reflect this shift. Denial rates dropped to just 1.9% in Q3 FY2021, but rose to 6.8% in Q1 FY2023. More audits and higher scrutiny from the Department of Labor underscore the need for precise, detail-oriented filings.
Why This History Matters
Looking at the history of PERM isn’t just an academic exercise. It highlights a consistent theme: each new layer of regulation and oversight reshapes how employers must approach recruitment and compliance. For today’s practitioners, it’s a reminder that success with PERM comes down to meticulous preparation, careful record-keeping, and adapting to the Department of Labor’s evolving priorities.
At Park, we build our technology and services around this principle: helping law firms and employers stay audit-ready, compliant, and efficient in a process that is both historically rooted and constantly evolving.
By: Shela Ward
USCIS has just released a major update to its Policy Manual for the temporary nonimmigrant (TN) visa. What does this mean for your clients? These changes impact how employers can determine who’s eligible and what the application process looks like moving forward. At Park Evaluations, we stay on top of immigration policy updates like this, so we can help draft TN letters tailored to the new guidelines to make sure you and your clients stay ahead of the curve.
What’s Changed for TN Visas?
USCIS’ updates to the Policy Manual are significant – and they touch on everything from employment requirements to the application process.
Regarding employment requirements and eligibility, candidates still need to be Canadian or Mexican citizens with a valid job offer in one of the designated TN professions. But the updated guidance now makes it extra clear that the job has to be with a U.S.-based employer or entity, and self-employment is prohibited.
USCIS has also tightened the criteria for several TN professions:
- Engineers – The candidate’s degree must be directly related to the job being offered. Meaning a tech job that leans more into software or computer-related tasks than actual engineering probably won’t qualify anymore.
- Computer Systems Analysts – In a major change to previous policy, this category will now explicitly exclude roles that involve programming or software development.
- Economists – Positions like market research analyst, marketing specialist, or financial analyst no longer qualify in this category.
- Scientific Technicians/Technologists – This category is now limited to those who support supervisory roles in one of ten specific scientific disciplines, excluding roles involving patient care.
- Physicians – TN physicians are still prohibited from direct patient care, unless it’s part of a teaching or research role. While this hasn’t changed from previous policy, the updated guidelines reinforce it.
Finally, there are a few procedural changes, too. TN applications can now be submitted at any Class A port-of-entry, including land borders and airports with a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) presence. Canadian nationals can also apply at pre-flight inspection stations in Canada, which adds flexibility and convenience to the process. When it comes to documentation, here’s what’s new:
- A degree from outside the U.S., Canada, or Mexico will now require an academic equivalency evaluation.
- Candidates will need to show they meet any state licensing requirements for their profession.
- Job duties must clearly align with what’s expected for the TN profession category.
How Can Park Help?
Bottom line, these updates narrow eligibility for certain roles and clarify the path forward for TN applicants. If you’re unsure how these changes might affect your clients, Park can help you double-check qualifications, documentation, and job descriptions to make sure everything lines up.
With the new TN Policy Manual updates in mind, Park can provide TN letters that support placement of the offered position within a designated occupational category in order to meet TN requirements. We can also provide letters to outline a candidate’s qualifications for their profession. With stringent changes to several occupation types in the policy updates, we’re ready to help you determine the best route to meet these requirements and secure approval for your clients.
By: Amy Frederickson
The Department of Labor randomly selects approximately 30 percent of PERM filings to be audited each fiscal year. In addition to these randomized audits, the department issues targeted audits to more closely evaluate PERM applications that set off alarm bells.
Increasing rates of PERM application denials over the past few years underscore that the Department of Labor is not only more frequently rejecting applications outright but also increasing their issuance of audits and intensifying their scrutiny of responses. While several arguments surface as to why PERM denials and audits are increasing, there is a general consensus that this enhanced scrutiny stems from mounting concerns that foreign workers are being unfairly selected for employment over U.S. citizens: a worry that continues to gain traction in the current political climate.
While random audits are simply a part of the PERM application process, increased scrutiny of PERM filings means employers must be careful to avoid red flags that trigger a targeted audit. The most common audit triggers include the following:
- Overly complex job details, including requirements that surpass what is deemed “normal” for a position;
- Job requirements that either require no Bachelor’s degree or require a degree but no previous experience;
- Job requirements that include a foreign language mandate;
- Positions that combine multiple occupations;
- A familial or otherwise personal connection between a company and a foreign worker;
- A trade-related occupation; and
- A seemingly sudden layoff of U.S. workers by the employer in question.
Once an audit is triggered by one or more of these or other factors, the processing time for a PERM application increases considerably, putting pressure on both employers and foreign workers.
While not all audits can be avoided, employers that take the necessary steps to eliminate red flags from their PERM filings are at a significant advantage, particularly in this political climate.
Park’s team of PERM experts are well versed in the regulations, guidelines, and documentation required to maintain the integrity of the PERM filing process, helping clients to avoid audits by providing support every step of the way and preventing common errors. If a filing is audited, Park can also help employers to respond effectively, including by providing a Business Necessity Letter from a professional evaluator.
By: Hannah Welbourn
Concerning the growing delays for green card processing, the Cato Institute stated, “America will lose the global talent competition when other countries grant green cards in a matter of a few weeks or months, not years.”
1,256 days (or 3.44 years) was the average processing time in Q2 of 2025. Since 2016, the U.S. government has added an average of 2.8 years to green card processing, and paying the $2,805 premium fee only drops the average wait time to 2.8 years.
These delays affect hundreds of thousands of households in the U.S. This is on top of the extensive backlog of green card cap slots, where if a candidate’s application is approved, they may have to wait for a visa number slot to become available before they receive their green card. These two obstacles create a multi-layered, multi-year backlog of 11.3 million total immigration applications USCIS must process.
What’s causing these delays?
The causes of these are also multi-layered. They include:
- I-90 form processing delays – The process for replacing or renewing a green card has jumped from roughly 1 month in 2024 to 8 months in 2025. Green card holders must fill out the I-90 every 10 years to renew their status (or whenever their green card is misplaced or damaged). And while USCIS extended the validity of green cards by 36 months in 2024, they received an increase of almost 100,000 I-90 forms in Q1 of 2025 compared to Q4 2024.
- Prefiling stage uncertainties – As employers and attorneys gather candidates’ academic credentials, employer-pay evidence, and experience letters (including job duties and tenure at previous organizations), prior employers often have little incentive to maintain up-to-date records on these candidates. This can lengthen the prefiling process and create unnecessary uncertainties.
- Prevailing wage determination delays and U.S. recruitment requirements. – The time it takes for the Department of Labor to issue a prevailing wage determination (to assign a specific occupational classification, skill level, and area code) has also increased. What used to take roughly three months in 2016 has more-than doubled to an average of 6.1 months in 2025. Additionally, the DOL requires employers to advertise to U.S. workers who apply with the basic criteria for the role. This period has also slightly delayed processing times since 2016. Once the employer deems no U.S. worker meets the criteria, they seek a labor certification from the DOL. What, on average, took approximately 6 months (180 days) to process in 2016 now takes around 1.3 years (483 days).
- Employer petition processing delays – After dealing with the DOL, employers must then petition the Department of Homeland Security to confirm that (1) the candidate is qualified for sponsorship and (2) the employer has the ability to pay the DOL wage determination. This is where the employer can pay the premium fee to expedite the waiting period to approximately 15 days. Without this fee, it usually takes 234 days (7.7 months) in 2025, whereas in 2016, it only took 180 days (6.6 months) on average.
- Green card application and cap delays – Once the employer petition is approved, there still exists the hurdle of the green card cap. Here, the employee must wait for a cap number to become available under annual limits. Additionally, the applicant must submit an I-485 to transition from a temporary visa status (e.g., H1-B) to permanent residence. In 2016, wait times typically stood around 165 days (5.5 months). In 2025, this took 210 days (6.9 months) on average.
On top of this and the unknown wait times for green card cap slots for specific candidates (i.e., from India, China, or the Phillipines, typically), the total employer-sponsored processing backlogs at the DOL and the DHS have more than doubled since 2016, exceeding 500,000 pending cases at the end of FY 2025 Q2.
What are the effects of these delays?
With these delays, candidates must go through a temporary H1-B visa status in order to have a chance at permanent residency. According to the Cato Institute, over 90 percent of employer-sponsored immigrants going through the labor certification process must already be in the United States to obtain employer sponsorship. This further lengthens the path to permanent residency when you factor in the time it takes to obtain a temporary visa status.
These delays can have a tolling effect on the individual candidates. Lengthened delays and processing times create stress, uncertainty, and career limitations for candidates, while employers wonder about the future of their employees.
On a national level, these delays also create hurdles for the United States to remain competitive on a global scale. Green card delays can risk losing top talent for American industries and stifle the ability to fill key skill gaps. This reverse brain drain can siphon top minds to other countries.
What can we do about it?
While we can’t change USCIS understaffing or immigration category suspensions, we can make sure nothing on your end slows a case down further. We’re proud to partner with law firms across the country, helping them keep cases clean, compliant, and moving forward (even in the most complex scenarios).
Need a quote or sample evaluation? Want to pre-schedule ads based on filing timelines? We’re here to help.
By: Hannah Welbourn
During the first Trump administration, one highly scrutinized area of the H-1B was the acceptable degree requirements for a specialty occupation. While we can’t predict what this year’s RFEs will look like, specialty occupation remains the main challenge we see on H-1B RFEs, and degree requirements remain the crux of the issue for many, if not most, of those cases.
Specialty occupations such as computer programmers were significantly challenged during the first Trump administration. In most cases, these roles would require a degree in computer science. While some degree fields, such as information technology, software engineering, or computer engineering, often overlap significantly with computer science in coursework and skills, others may pose challenges.
As an example, a candidate with a mechanical engineering degree applying for a computer programming role might face scrutiny, as USCIS could view the fields as too disparate. The core curriculum for mechanical engineering degrees typically would not align closely enough with the theoretical and practical requirements of a computer science-based occupation, potentially leading to an RFE or denial. This is often the case with other engineering fields such as electronics engineering, which is often considered too disparate for roles focused on software development as it typically involves hardware design, circuitry, and signal processing rather than the theoretical and applied principles of computer science.
For a candidate with a degree in a directly related field, using academics alone to qualify for the role is usually the simplest solution, both for the applicant and the adjudicator. However, if the field is not directly related to the job duty requirements, it is often the case that a much stronger argument can be made using a combination of academics and work experience directly related to the position. That is where our Experience Expert Letter or Beneficiary Qualification Letter can be utilized to arrive at a new equivalency rather than relying on academics alone that might not fit with the job duties.
For more information or to get started, feel free to reach out to our team at [email protected]
By: Hannah Welbourn and Mai Bui
While navigating employment-based petitions, especially the H-1B, the duration of a program can be a frequent point of confusion. One question we often see: How could a three-year degree be equivalent to a U.S. Bachelor’s?
It’s important to consider not only the number of years of study but also the structure, educational conventions, and historical contexts of the academic system behind the credential. In the United States, a Bachelor’s degree typically involved four years of post-secondary education. However, in many countries, especially those following British or Commonwealth systems, Bachelor’s degrees are often completed in three years. Whether these degrees are considered equivalent to a U.S. Bachelor’s degree depends largely on two factors: what is required to enter the program, and what graduates are entitled to do with their degree.
For instance, a three-year Bachelor of Science (BSc) from India and a three-year Bachelor of Science from the United Kingdom differ in structure despite their duration.
United Kingdom: A-Level Exams and Focused Study
Prior to enrolling in university, students in the UK typically completed 13 years of education, culminating in rigorous A-level exams. These exams serve as entry requirements and represent a level of specialization and advanced study that aligns with first-year college-level coursework in the United States, similar to Advanced Placement (AP) courses in U.S. high schools. As a result, the Bachelor’s degree is built upon a strong academic foundation with no need for general education coursework, because the student has already met those requirements during their A-level studies. As a result, a Bachelor’s degree from the UK is considered equivalent to a U.S. Bachelor’s degree despite only taking three years to complete.
India: Variation in Academic Structure
In contrast, a Bachelor of Arts/Science in India is usually completed after twelve years of schooling. Some general education requirements are not yet fulfilled by the time candidates entered their first year of university, requiring a longer period of higher education. For this reason, the three-year Bachelor’s degree is typically evaluated as three years of undergraduate study.
It’s important to note the difference between these Indian three-year BSc degrees and the Indian four-year B.S. research degree (offered at select institutions) or the Bachelor of Engineering/Technology. The latter programs are typically highly specialized programs lasting four years, usually with strong research or experimental learning components.
These distinctions can affect petition strategies, particularly when arguing that a beneficiary meets the “U.S. Bachelor’s degree or equivalent” standard for the H-1B.
Questions about equivalencies? Feel free to reach out to [email protected] for a preliminary assessment and quote.