The H-1B Holiday Rush Towards H-1B Enforcement
Highlights
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)’s new “Project Firewall” significantly intensifies H-1B enforcement, enabling expanded audits, interagency data sharing, stricter penalties (including debarment), and increased scrutiny of patterns like offsite placements, wage discrepancies, and inconsistent job information.
Employers face a heightened year-end compliance push, as the initiative places renewed focus on documentation, accurate filings, and monitoring of third-party placements, with the DOL publishing an H-1B Compliance Assistance Toolkit to guide expectations.
Proactive, collaborative compliance is now essential, and employers are urged to conduct regular audits, strengthen internal processes, and work closely with immigration counsel ahead of the FY 2027 H-1B registration season.
With the holidays just around the corner, Project Firewall, a new enforcement initiative launched by the DOL, will ensure H-1B compliance does not take any time off.
The H-1B nonimmigrant work visa is the most popular work visa used by U.S. employers to employ foreign nationals in professional, highly skilled positions that require at least a bachelor’s degree.
However, there are difficulties associated with this visa type. Under current worksite enforcement initiatives, the H-1B visa category continues to receive heightened scrutiny. Additionally, the systematic shortcomings of the H-1B lottery atmosphere make it increasingly difficult to secure these visas, namely a high volume of submissions, an increase in the likelihood of fraud, and duplicative submissions for the same H-1B beneficiary. Now, employers will face new challenges because of new compliance initiatives.
Project Firewall: An Enforcement Gift to the Department of Labor
The DOL announced Project Firewall in September 2025, stating the program would strengthen investigative efforts to promote employer compliance with H-1B visa program obligations.
Project Firewall is the compliance gift that just keeps on giving new methods of enforcement to the DOL. It empowers the DOL in the following ways:
Permits the Secretary of the DOL to initiate employer audits;
Expands data sharing between the U.S. Departments of Labor, Homeland Security, and State;
Allows punishment through years-long debarment in addition to civil penalties;
Facilitates referrals to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for status revocation; and
Permits orders for the payment of back wages and public disclosure.
Since its inception, Project Firewall has enabled the initiation of audits based upon the DOL’s observation of patterns of offsite placements, wage-level discrepances, and higher ratios of H-1B employees. Inconsistent job titles and frequent amendments have also prompted additional scrutiny.
Presenting employers with a guide to these enforcement changes, the DOL published an H-1B Compliance Assistance Toolkit in September.
An H-1B Holiday Rush to Avoid the Naughty List
The expansion in compliance enforcement has created a new form of holiday rush for employers: the rush to ensure nonimmigrant programs, particularly H-1B visa programs, meet compliance requirements. In response to this increase in compliance efforts and interdepartmental government collaboration, Barnes & Thornburg encourages employers to adopt the following five practices:
Initiate a comprehensive H-1B compliance program review with counsel;
Conduct an internal H-1B audit in coordination with counsel at least once annually;
Increase documentation practices, including changes in job duties, worksite locations, and any significant change in the circumstances of employment;
Provide regular compliance guidance to human resources and other relevant company representatives, as well as vendors and clients involved in third-party placements; and
Routinely monitor third-party placements.
Despite the icy landscape, the H-1B visa category remains an essential method to temporarily employ foreign national employees. More than ever, the category is complex, and requires a thoughtful and strategic approach, including collaboration with counsel on compliance practices far outliving the receipt of the approval notice. As such, we encourage employers and potential H-1B registrants to consult with immigration counsel prior to proactively plan to ensure compliance ahead of the Fiscal Year 2027 H-1B registration season.
The Ambler Road Project- New EB-2 NIW Opportunities for Mining Engineers, Metallurgists, and Construction Professionals
The recent approval of Alaska’s Ambler Road Project marks a pivotal moment for U.S. infrastructure, energy policy, and skilled immigration. By reinforcing America’s commitment to energy independence and unlocking access to vast mineral reserves, the project highlights a growing demand for expertise in engineering, mining, logistics, and environmental management.
For professionals pursuing EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) and EB-1A visas, this development provides direct policy alignment with national priorities, creating clear pathways for petitioners whose work advances the United States’ goals of sustainability, innovation, and resource security.
What is the Ambler Road Project?
Trump Authorizes Progress on Ambler Road
When President Donald Trump signed the order approving Alaska’s Ambler Road Project on October 6, 2025, he called it “an economic gold mine” and “a very big deal from the standpoint of minerals and energy.”
The Ambler Road Project proposed a 211-mile road connecting Dalton Highway to Alaska’s remote Ambler Mining District, opening road access to one of the state’s most resource-rich regions. The President’s authorization for the project represents a key step in broader federal efforts to unlock the United States’ mineral potential and advance the Administration’s energy dominance agenda.
Once stalled, the project will enable access to more than 1,700 active mining claims containing vast deposits of critical minerals, including copper, silver, gold, lead, cobalt, and other strategic metals. The project will necessitate the construction of the road and expand mining exploration and development capabilities.
Where Opportunity Expands: The New Demand for Skilled Talent
The Ambler Road Project represents a rare intersection of engineering ambition, industrial necessity, and national policy. Its scope goes beyond Alaska’s borders, highlighting America’s intention to rebuild its capacity to source and process critical minerals domestically.
The renewed focus on mineral independence naturally increases the need for specialized talent. Therefore, mining engineers, metallurgists, and supply-chain professionals will all play essential roles in this transformation. Building a road through Arctic terrain requires advanced geotechnical and civil expertise. Operating the mines will need metallurgical innovation and logistical precision. Supporting industries from equipment manufacturing to environmental protection will need scientists and specialists who can make these operations safer, more efficient, and more sustainable.
Across the country, similar sectors already face labor shortages. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects steady demand growth for engineers and materials scientists throughout the decade, while the energy transition creates new categories of technical work. The Ambler Project reinforces that trajectory by adding thousands of direct and indirect jobs in mining, infrastructure, and logistics.
Notably, for immigrant professionals, this is an encouraging signal. The U.S. continues to rely on global expertise to bridge workforce gaps in highly specialized fields. As projects like Ambler scale up, the need for advanced skills and the visas that enable them becomes increasingly evident.
Strengthening EB-2 NIW and EB-1A Petitions in 2025
As federal policy prioritizes infrastructure and mineral security, immigration strategies must evolve alongside it. The policy climate surrounding critical minerals can give immigration applicants tangible ways to frame their petitions. We do this by grounding every petition in current U.S. policy trends and aligning each client’s record with measurable national objectives.
How The Ambler Road Project Strengthens the EB-2 NIW Framework:
1. Prong 1: Substantial Merit and National Importance
Professionals in critical minerals and related fields such as mine planning, metallurgical engineering, control systems engineering, logistics, and supply chain can now link their work directly to the U.S. goal of reducing dependence on imported minerals and reinforcing energy dominance.
2. Prong 2: Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
This prong focuses on the petitioner’s capability. Petitioners should provide clear evidence of past results such as successful mine designs, innovative metallurgical processes, or risk-management systems adopted in industrial settings.
3. Prong 3: Benefit to the United States on Balance
This allows applicants to emphasize urgency. Skilled labor shortages, remote-site challenges, and technological demands justify the need to waive the job-offer requirement. When evidence demonstrates that the petitioner’s presence accelerates a project vital to U.S. economic security, the argument for national benefit becomes more compelling.
How The Ambler Road Project Strengthens the EB-1A Pathway
For EB-1A candidates, sustained acclaim remains on the benchmark. Engineers, metallurgists, and environmental specialists can point to patents, published research, or leadership roles that led to measurable industry outcomes like improved efficiency, safer extraction, or stronger compliance standards. In addition, recognition by peers or independent media further supports the case.
At Colombo & Hurd, we work closely with our clients to craft petitions that connect these accomplishments to national objectives. Rather than simply listing credentials, we craft a narrative that demonstrates why each professional’s work matters to the United States.
In either category, petitioners benefit from aligning their evidence with the broader U.S. agenda. When your work develops domestic resources, protects natural assets, or modernizes infrastructure, it naturally aligns with the national priorities now shaping immigration policy.
Looking Ahead: Making the Most of a Defining Moment
As the Ambler Road project moves from approval to implementation, it reflects a national mindset that values technical ability, innovation, and practical problem-solving. For professionals in critical minerals and related fields, there is an opportunity and need for expertise that strengthens the federal agenda toward energy security.
Professionals should define their endeavors in clear terms that align with the federal priorities. A metallurgist might describe how their techniques can increase domestic yield from existing ore bodies. Similarly, a civil engineer might outline how their designs mitigate negative impact on future yields while expanding infrastructure access.
Each narrative should tie directly to the goals highlighted by the Ambler initiative: secure resources, strengthen industry, and promote responsible stewardship of natural resources.
Strong documentation remains key. Project records, design reports, patents, and letters from industry leaders help establish authority and contribution. For environmental energy professionals, showing how natural resources protection ensures long-term productivity strengthens the case.
Projects like the Ambler Road remind us that U.S. policy and innovation rely on the professionals who make them possible. As the U.S. accelerates projects that enhance energy security and resource independence, the need for global talent will grow. Immigrant professionals who align their work with these priorities will find meaningful opportunities and stronger grounds for their immigration petitions.
Trump’s Executive Order on AI and Pediatric Cancer Creates New EB-2 NIW Opportunities
On September 30, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed the Executive Order “Unlocking Cures for Pediatric Cancer with Artificial Intelligence,” establishing AI-driven pediatric cancer research as a national priority. The Order directs federal agencies and private partners to accelerate research and empower clinicians and researchers with the tools to translate data into improved diagnoses, treatment, and cures.
In the context of U.S. immigration policy, this development opens new opportunities for professionals seeking classification under the EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) and other employment-based categories. By affirming the national importance of work in AI, medical research, data science, and biotechnology, the Order provides strong policy support for applicants seeking to demonstrate eligibility under the EB-2 NIW.
Understanding the Executive Order
Pediatric cancer remains the leading cause of disease-related death among children in the United States, with incidences increasing significantly over the past four decades. Traditional treatment has seen limited progress, highlighting the need for new and innovative approaches.
To address this, the Executive Order calls for the use of artificial intelligence to drive advancements in pediatric cancer care. It builds on federal efforts, such as the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative (CCDI), which collects and integrates pediatric cancer data to accelerate breakthroughs, and it encourages greater collaboration between public and private sectors.
The Order mobilizes agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission to accelerate AI-driven medical research and infrastructure.
Key Provisions of the Executive Order
The Order directs federal agencies to:
Invest in AI-Driven Biomedical Innovation: Enhance research infrastructure and accelerate AI integration in cancer data analysis.
Fund Research with National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Centers: Prioritize projects involving predictive analytics, multi-omics research, and therapeutic optimization.
Advance Data Sharing and Interoperability: Improve access to privacy-protected clinical datasets to support research and clinical trial recruitment.
Promote Public-Private Collaboration: Encourage biotechnology firms, digital health companies, and AI startups to contribute tools and solutions.
Strengthen U.S. Leadership in Health Technology: Position the United States as a global center for AI-enabled medical discovery.
How the Executive Order Supports EB-2 NIW Petitions
The EB-2 NIW allows foreign nationals with advanced degrees or exceptional ability to self-petition for permanent residency without requiring an employer sponsor or labor certification. Petitioners must demonstrate that their work serves the national interest of the United States. In recent years, the “national importance” element has become the area USCIS most consistently challenges in these petitions, requiring substantial documentation and strategic argumentation to overcome increased scrutiny.
The new Executive Order provides a new, powerful avenue to define the national importance of the work of professionals in AI, Data Science, Oncology Research, Biotechnology, and other related fields. It establishes clear and direct policy evidence that:
AI research and applications in healthcare are strategic national priorities.
Pediatric cancer innovation is a public health objective of the United States.
AI and data science professionals, not only medical doctors, contribute to national healthcare goals.
There is a national interest in attracting and retaining advanced researchers and AI innovators.
Fields Strengthened by the Executive Order
The Executive Order has implications across numerous professional fields, offering a powerful pathway to articulate and align their work with the national policy priority.
Field
Examples
Artificial Intelligence
Machine learning researchers, AI engineers building healthcare tools
Biomedical Research
Cancer biologists, immunotherapy and drug discovery scientists.
Health Data Analytics
Bioinformaticians, clinical data scientists, data architects.
Medical Innovation
Digital diagnostics developers, AI-enabled imaging specialists.
Clinical Practice
Pediatric oncologists, hematology researchers.
Computational Sciences
Predictive modeling experts, cloud computing in healthcare.
Biotechnology
Translational researchers, precision medicine developers.
Professionals in these fields can align their EB-2 NIW petitions with the Executive Order by demonstrating how their work can contribute to advancing AI innovation and data science to improve pediatric oncology diagnostic, treatment and cure in line with the goal of the Order.
EB-2 NIW Strategy: Building a Strong Legal Case
While the Executive Order sets the policy context, working in the implicated fields alone does not automatically establish the requisite national importance. Petitioners must still establish eligibility under the three-prong framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar: (1) the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, (2) the petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, and (3) it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements.
While the Executive Order provides a favorable policy backdrop for demonstrating national importance of the work related to advancing pediatric oncology care through AI, it is still crucial to present clear and detailed plans and strategies for implementing this work.
Defining a Clear, Specific and Innovative Proposed Endeavor
USCIS frequently denies NIW cases when the proposed endeavor is broad or vague. Under this Executive Order, general statements like “I will use AI to improve cancer research” are not enough. The petitioner must describe a specific, credible plan of work that aligns with the U.S. priorities. Examples include:
Developing AI tools to improve early diagnosis of pediatric brain tumors
Designing predictive analytics to optimize pediatric chemotherapy dosing
Building data platforms facilitating nationwide pediatric cancer trials
Developing machine learning tools for rare childhood cancer genomics
Petitioners should be able to describe what they will do, how they will do it, and why it represents an advancement in a field recognized as a U.S. national priority in a detailed yet concise manner.
Demonstrating Record of Success with a Broad Impact
Recent USCIS trends place increasing emphasis on whether the petitioner has a demonstrated record of success that has contributed to the broader advancement of their field. While the list below does not represent rigid requirements, strong evidence of broad impact may include:
Published, peer-reviewed research demonstrating impact on the field
Adoption or replication of Proven AI or data science models by others in the healthcare field
Roles held in collaborative or interdisciplinary initiatives related to pediatric oncology or AI in healthcare
Presentations or invited talks at conferences
Letters from recognized experts in AI, oncology, or medical research attesting to the influence and the widespread dissemination of the work
Presenting Concrete Plans for Advancing the Proposed Endeavor in the U.S.
USCIS has increasingly focused on the feasibility and scalability of the proposed endeavor. Petitioners must present credible, detailed plans showing how their work will be implemented and scaled within the United States. Examples of strong evidence of concrete plans include:
A clear, step-by-step plan for collaborating with U.S.-based institutions and organizations in the field of developing AI or data solutions to advance oncology research
Letters from institutions and organizations in the field expressing interest in collaborating with you to develop AI solutions that advance oncology research
Specific mechanisms for broad dissemination of your work such as professional presentations and open-source initiatives
Resource support from institutions and organizations demonstrating the feasibility of expanding the work
Recognition by U.S. experts or professional organizations through letters validating your ability to contribute to the advancement of the fields in the United States
Key Takeaways
The Executive Order has explicitly recognized AI-driven innovation and health data modernization as national priorities. In the immigration context, the Order establishes a powerful policy backdrop that opens a new strategic pathway for EB-2 NIW petitioners working at the intersection of medical research, AI and data science by providing a clear framework for demonstrating national importance in these fields.
As the United States advances its leadership in medical innovation, it will increasingly rely on researchers, engineers, physicians, bioinformaticians and technologies capable of delivering measurable impact. The Order’s integration of AI, health data, and biomedical research makes interdisciplinary expertise a strategic advantage, positioning such candidates as valuable to U.S. national interests.
Those developing AI solutions that improve patient outcomes, accelerate cancer discovery, or advance the integration of health data can now benefit from both a national mission and policy environment that recognize the significance of their work.
What Every Immigrant Should Know About Certified Document Translation
Moving your life across borders is exciting, but paperwork quickly turns the thrill into a maze. I’ve walked many applicants through that maze, and the same roadblock keeps popping up: certified translations. One missing line in a translator’s statement or a skipped stamp can stall a visa, delay a green-card interview, or make a legal […]
DOL–EEOC Partnership Expands Coordinated Enforcement on National Origin Discrimination Under ‘Project Firewall’
On November 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a formal partnership with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Project Firewall to intensify enforcement against employers engaging in unlawful national origin discrimination, including hiring practices that disadvantage American workers.
The DOL’s announcement comes on the heels of new EEOC anti-American bias educational materials and underscores federal agencies’ enhanced data sharing, aligned enforcement tools, and coordinated guidance to deter discriminatory hiring, particularly where job postings or screening practices may prefer nonimmigrant visa holders (such as H-1B) over qualified U.S. workers.
Quick Hits
The EEOC, the DOL, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are coordinating efforts related to national origin discrimination and anti-American bias.
As part of Project Firewall, the DOL and EEOC plan to share data, align enforcement tools, and facilitate referrals addressing discriminatory hiring and potential H‑1B program abuses.
Given this coordination, employers may see and potentially should anticipate inquiries or involvement from more than one agency investigating alleged national origin discrimination or anti-American bias.
The new formal partnership builds on the EEOC’s recent technical assistance and educational updates, which emphasize that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all workers—including American workers—from national origin discrimination.
That one-page guidance from the EEOC states that potential business rationales, such as labor costs, customer preferences, or stereotypes, do not justify discriminatory practices. Additionally, the EEOC’s one-pager and updated national origin resources flag several high‑risk areas: visa‑status preferences in job ads (e.g., “H‑1B only” or “H‑1B preferred”); disparate treatment in application and promotion processes that make it harder for U.S. workers to advance; and retaliation or harassment tied to national origin. Notably, the EEOC’s recent materials previewed a multiagency enforcement posture—now reinforced by the DOL’s Project Firewall announcement.
Project Firewall operationalizes that multiagency approach by facilitating information sharing “as permitted by law,” clarifying employer obligations, and aligning enforcement pathways so that potential Title VII violations can proceed in tandem with DOL actions addressing H‑1B misuse and related program compliance. The partnership also involves the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), signaling a whole-of-government focus on practices that may prefer foreign workers or visa holders over qualified Americans.
Next Steps
In light of the federal enforcement agency coordination, employers may wish to assess how their recruiting and hiring practices reference or rely on visa status, particularly where postings or screening criteria could be perceived as favoring nonimmigrant visa holders. Employers might also consider reviewing their practices against the themes noted in recent EEOC technical assistance and determining whether conducting attorney-client privileged audits of selection, promotion, and pay practices can help ensure practices are neutral, job-related, and applied consistently. Training appropriate stakeholders on Title VII’s protections as they relate to national origin, as well as creating and maintaining contemporaneous documentation of merit-based and legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, can assist in responding to agency questions that may arise.
ICE Enforcement Sweeps North Carolina- What Employers Need to Know
This past week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducted coordinated enforcement operations across major cities in North Carolina, sparking public outcry, widespread fear, and significant political backlash.
This federal immigration crackdown, known as “Operation Charlotte’s Web,” has been highly concentrated in Charlotte, Raleigh, and surrounding areas. Federal immigration agents have already arrested hundreds of people statewide. This series of aggressive immigration enforcement operations continues to sweep across the state, leaving many employers uncertain about their rights and responsibilities. Many businesses have temporarily closed because employees feared coming to work.
Below is a framework for employers to protect their businesses, employees, and legal obligations during this unprecedented period of heightened immigration enforcement.
Recent Policy Changes Driving Enforcement
Several recent policy changes have contributed to the current enforcement climate. One significant change with implications for the workplace was the termination of the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) Parole Program. Under this program, certain individuals from the four countries were given permission to live in the United States for a period of up to two years, provided they had a financial sponsor. The intent of the program was to allow parolees to seek humanitarian relief and enter the workplace.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminated the program, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision. Individuals without a lawful basis to remain in the United States were informed their parole was terminated and their parole-based employment authorization was revoked.
The notices were sent to the email address on file with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and notifications were also sent to employers through E-Verify. This direct notification to employers signaled that enforcement actions would be taking place, and continued compliance issues could prove problematic for businesses.
Another recent change related to Haiti involved the termination of the country’s Temporary Protected Status (TPS). DHS argued that Haiti no longer met the standards for TPS designation. The status was set to expire on September 2, 2025, but a recent court injunction blocked the termination, extending the deadline to February 3, 2026. An important step for employers is to update the expiration date on any applicable I-9 forms to reflect this extension.
These policy shifts have created uncertainty for both employers and employees, making it critical for businesses to understand their obligations and rights during ICE investigations and enforcement actions.
Understanding ICE’s Authority
The primary responsibilities of ICE are to prevent the hiring of unauthorized workers, verify employment eligibility requirements, and enforce the completion of I-9 forms. ICE has several investigatory tools at its disposal, three of which are notices of inspection, search warrants, and subpoenas. Each has a different set of procedures and requirements.
Employers should understand the nuances of these ICE investigatory tools to mitigate risk.
For a notice of inspection, which is essentially a review of I-9 forms, ICE is required to provide advance notice of three days. Delivery methods include certified mail, hand delivery, or overnight delivery. There is no grace period, so employers must check their mail regularly. Employers should only maintain I-9 records for employees, not contractors.
Warrants and subpoenas can be triggered if ICE receives information that unauthorized employment is an issue, if there is suspicion the employer is hiring ineligible workers, or if there is a reason to seize documents and search a specific workplace. There is no grace period with warrants or subpoenas. These inspections are unannounced and will involve multiple agents. Agents can seize documents, computers, and devices, and they can also detain unauthorized workers.
There are two types of warrants: administrative warrants and judicial warrants.
Administrative warrants generally only apply to public spaces, such as parking lots, lobbies, and reception areas. Judicial warrants authorize access to the specific areas described in the warrant, and there can be serious consequences for refusal. The details associated with subpoenas are similar.
Understanding the distinction between these investigatory tools is essential. A notice of inspection provides employers time to prepare and ensure their I-9 documentation is in order.
However, warrants and subpoenas arrive without warning, making advance preparation and established protocols even more critical.
Response Protocols
If your company has been served a subpoena or a warrant, make a copy of it or take a picture immediately. Ideally, you will have already designated a person to handle these situations. That person should be contacted immediately, and you should inform the agents that company policy requires that person to be reached before they can proceed.
Be aware that this strategy may not work if the designated person is unavailable or if the agents refuse to wait.
In that case, verify the signature on the warrant or subpoena, the expiration date, and the scope of the search, including the items authorized for seizure.
Pay close attention to any limitations specified in the document, as agents should only be granted access to physical areas and company records or materials explicitly described.
Best practices for your company to adopt during the search include:
Documenting everything that could potentially be relevant, such as the names of the agents, their badge numbers, the time of arrival and departure, and the items seized
Shutting down operations in the search areas and providing a safety orientation for the agents to demonstrate cooperation and ensure workplace safety
Having a company representative follow each agent to take notes and record videos, creating a contemporaneous record of the search
Asking to make copies of documents that are seized and explaining why those documents are vital to your operations, which may help expedite their return
If the agents attempt to seize documents that have attorney-client privilege, asking to have your attorney consulted before an inspection
If the agent insists on inspecting the document, not obstructing their investigation while documenting your objection clearly and in writing
These protocols serve dual purposes: they demonstrate good faith cooperation with law enforcement while also protecting your company’s interests and creating a detailed record should any disputes arise later.
What Employers Should Never Do
General prohibitions that can land employers in hot water include hiding employees or assisting with unauthorized departures, providing false information or denying the presence of named individuals, and shredding, hiding, or destroying documents. These actions can transform a routine inspection into a criminal investigation and expose the company to significant legal liability.
Employers should advise managers to never:
Offer statements to federal agents without attorney consultation
Submit to questioning before consulting the company attorney
Do not direct non-managerial employees to refuse to speak to agents. However, it is permissible to inform staff that they are not obligated to submit to questioning, that they can choose whether to speak with agents, and that the company will not retaliate regardless of their choice.
This distinction is important: employers should not obstruct the investigation but can ensure employees understand their rights.
An outgrowth of this advice is to remain courteous and professional throughout the process. Employers should not interfere with or obstruct the agents.
Further, it is advisable to document objections and take note when agents proceed despite objections. This documentation can prove invaluable if legal challenges arise.
Employers should also comply with commands if the agents claim exigent circumstances and maintain detailed records of all interactions. The record should include dates, times, names, specific requests made by agents, and the company’s responses.
Preparing for Future Enforcement Actions
Given the current enforcement climate in North Carolina, employers should take proactive steps to prepare for potential ICE actions.
This includes conducting internal I-9 audits to identify and correct any documentation deficiencies, establishing clear protocols for responding to ICE visits, training managers and human resources staff on proper procedures, and designating specific individuals to serve as the company’s point of contact during enforcement actions.
Employers should also consider consulting with immigration counsel to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The current enforcement environment makes it more important than ever for businesses to have expert legal guidance readily available.
Stay Ahead of the Freeze- Your Employer’s Guide to ICE Compliance and Navigating Worksite Enforcement
Following the 2024 presidential election, prognosticators predicted that President Donald Trump’s second administration would usher in a significant increase in immigration enforcement by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Those predictions have proven accurate.
During the first Trump administration, ICE dramatically increased worksite enforcement. Between fiscal years 2017 and 2018, worksite enforcement investigations surged by 405%, accompanied by a sharp rise in worksite‑related arrests. The second Trump administration has continued that effort.
Since January 2025, ICE has conducted worksite immigration raids across a wide range of industries, from a specialty beverage manufacturer to car washes. Public reports indicate at least 40 worksite enforcement actions resulting in over 1,100 arrests within the first seven months of 2025 alone. These operations have spanned the nation, from Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket to Nashville to Los Angeles.
On September 4, 2025, ICE executed its largest single‑site immigration raid to date, detaining 475 individuals at a Hyundai Motor battery plant in Georgia. Thomas Homan, appointed as “border czar,” has signaled a return to an era of heightened worksite enforcement.
The increase in immigration enforcement shows no signs of slowing. As a result, employers must proactively prepare for potential ICE actions and understand the legal and cultural obligations and risks involved.
Legal Background
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 requires employers to verify and document the identity and work eligibility of every hire. This process requires employers to obtain an Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9s from each employee. Employees must complete their portion of the I-9 by the end of their first day of employment, and employers must complete the remaining portion within three business days from the employee’s start date. Applicants and employees without proper documentation are subject to detention and removal. Companies employing undocumented workers may face civil and criminal penalties.
Forms of Worksite Enforcement
Worksite Raid
ICE may discover a company’s or an individual’s failure to comply by initiating what the agency refers to as “worksite enforcement.” In common parlance, however, this form of enforcement is known as a “raid.”
ICE is permitted to enter public areas of the workplace without a warrant. However, ICE can only enter private areas of a worksite for limited purposes, including executing warrants, pursuing a fleeing suspect, and responding to emergency situations where they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and relevant evidence may be destroyed.
Only a judicial warrant signed by a federal or state judge permits entry into private areas of the workplace to conduct a search.
Conversely, an administrative warrant, which is signed by ICE rather than a judge, does not permit the ICE agents to conduct a search of private areas.
I‑9 Audit
ICE also has statutory authority to serve employers with a Notice of Inspection (NOI), requiring employers to produce documents such as:
Historical lists of workers with dates of hire and termination
Payroll and tax records
Company ownership information
Staffing vendor information
I-9s
Any copies of employee documents supporting identity and authorization
Upon receiving an NOI, employers must deliver notice to their employees within 72 hours of the inspection. In addition, employers have three business days to comply with an NOI, after which ICE agents can review those materials on site. Importantly, unlike a judicial warrant, an NOI does not authorize ICE to enter the premises.
Obtaining Consent
Lastly, ICE may enter a worksite with the consent of an authorized individual, typically the property owner. Obtaining consent is the simplest and most effective means for ICE to enter a worksite. For example, agents may:
Request that the property owner provide consent before ICE arrives onsite.
Obtain detainer warrants, which are not issued by a court but authorize ICE to detain undocumented workers, and request consent to enter the site to execute the warrant.
“Piggyback” on investigations made by other federal or state agencies, including OSHA and the Wage & Hour Division of the DOL, when those agencies conduct investigations and request consent to enter.
How Can Employers Prepare for Worksite Enforcement?
Regardless of the enforcement method, interactions with law enforcement agents can be intimidating. Experienced agents often leverage an individual’s hesitancy to refuse cooperation. Therefore, employers across industries should consider proactive measures that could dramatically reduce the disruption that an ICE worksite enforcement visit can cause and the potential exposure that may result from violations.
Train Frontline Personnel. Receptionists, security guards, and other frontline employees are often the first to encounter ICE agents. Therefore, companies must ensure that those people know how to respond. As it is important that agents’ arrivals trigger a prompt and proper response, reflecting the company’s desire to cooperate without compromising its legal rights, employers should provide training and a quick‑reference “cheat sheet” to guide those individuals.
Frontline personnel should request proper identification from ICE agents. When the ICE agents have a warrant to conduct a raid, the agents must identify themselves and present the proper documentation for the search. If the agents do not identify themselves, the employees should request such identification.
Frontline personnel should verify the judicial warrant for the search.
Frontline personnel must understand the difference between a judicial warrant, which is signed by a judge and authorizes search of private areas, and an administrative warrant, which is signed by ICE and does not authorize search of private areas.
A proper judicial warrant must:
Be signed and dated by a judge;
Specify your company by name and the company’s address where the search is taking place, include a timeframe for the search; and
Include a description of the premises to be searched and a list of items or people to be seized.
Employees should not interfere with the search or attempt to hide any employees, documents, or provide false information.
Establish Clear Policies. Employers should create policies and protocol for senior management and in-house counsel to follow when ICE, or any government agency, arrives or initiates an ICE audit.
This protocol should include:
Contacting legal counsel;
Gathering and verifying all appropriate documents; and
Monitoring the agents’ compliance with warrants.
This includes ensuring ICE agents are not searching private areas or seizing items or people outside the scope of the warrant presented to you.
Such employees should document all interactions with government agencies that arrive at your workplace and track documents that are seized to protect your business and employees.
By adopting relatively straightforward policies, employers can significantly reduce the possibility that such visits spiral out of control and negatively impact the company operationally or legally.
Notify Employees of Their Rights. Employees should be aware of their rights if ICE enters their workplace. Specifically, notify employees that they have the right to remain silent and, if detained, the right to an attorney. Communicating these rights protects both employees and the company.
Evaluate Compliance Risks. Employers should assess the measures the company has taken to ensure that employees are properly documented.
If you have outsourced I-9 compliance, check your providers’ processes.
If you have subcontractors onsite, make sure they have appropriate systems in place to ensure legal compliance.
Temporary staffing agencies can be a common source of worker documentation issues, so pay close attention if the company relies on such.
Ensure I-9 Compliance. Employers should implement effective I-9 compliance policies, conduct regular internal audits to confirm compliance and correct deficiencies that may arise, and retain employee I-9s as required by law. Implementing protocols to ensure that all records are accurately maintained can help employers preemptively address areas of potential scrutiny and avoid sanctions due to noncompliance.
Implement E-Verify. Employers should consider implementing E-Verify, an online system created by the federal government, which compares information from an employee’s I-9 to other records available on government databases to confirm employment eligibility. Many states now require the use of E-Verify for employment verification. Even where optional, E-Verify can mitigate the risk of false documentation and demonstrate proactive compliance.
Train Employees on Proper Documentation. Educate your managers and HR staff on how to properly complete I-9 forms for new hires and recognize document issues. Establishing clear protocols for onboarding and eligibility verification can mitigate compliance risks.
With enforcement efforts intensifying, preparation is critical. Companies that are prepared will minimize operational disruption and safeguard against legal and financial consequences.
Listen to this article
December 2025 Visa Bulletin Shows No Advancement in Dates for Filing for Most Employment-Based Immigrant Visa Categories
The U.S. Department of State’s December 2025 Visa Bulletin shows some advancement from the November 2025 Visa Bulletin in the final action dates, while the dates for filing show no changes, with the exception of the fourth preference category for certain religious workers and the fifth preference unreserved category. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it would continue to accept employment-based adjustment of status filings based on the Dates for Filing chart in December.
Quick Hits
USCIS will continue to accept adjustment of status filings based on the Dates for Filing chart in the December 2025 Visa Bulletin.
The December 2025 Visa Bulletin shows some advancement from last month’s bulletin for employment-based categories for the final action dates.
All employment-based categories for dates for filing remain unchanged, except for fourth preference for Certain Religious Workers and fifth preference unreserved.
The final action dates for several categories advance slightly in the December 2025 Visa Bulletin:
EB-1: All countries remain current in December except for China, which advances by one month to January 22, 2023, and India, which advances by one month to March 15, 2022.
EB-2: All countries advance by two months to February 1, 2024, except for China, which advances by two months to June 1, 2021, and India, which advances by six weeks to May 15, 2013.
EB-3: All countries advanced by two weeks to April 15, 2023, except for China, which advances by one month to April 1, 2021, and India, which also advances by one month to September 22, 2013.
Certain Religious Workers: All countries changed from unauthorized to September 1, 2020.
EB-5: All countries remain current in December, except for China, which advances seven months to July 15, 2016, and India, which advances by five months to July 1, 2021.
Final Action Dates for Employment-Based Visa Applications
Employment- Based
All ChargeabilityAreas ExceptThose Listed
CHINA-mainlandborn
INDIA
MEXICO
PHILIPPINES
1st
C
22JAN23
15MAR22
C
C
2nd
01FEB24
01JUN21
15MAY13
01FEB24
01FEB24
3rd
15APR23
01APR21
22SEP13
15APR23
15APR23
Other Workers
01AUG21
08DEC17
22SEP13
01AUG21
01AUG21
4th
01SEP20
01SEP20
01SEP20
01SEP20
01SEP20
Certain Religious Workers
01SEP20
01SEP20
01SEP20
01SEP20
01SEP20
5th Unreserved(including C5, T5, I5, R5, NU, RU)
C
15JUL16
01JUL21
C
C
5th Set Aside:Rural (20%, including NR, RR)
C
C
C
C
C
5th Set Aside:High Unemployment (10%, including NH, RH)
C
C
C
C
C
5th Set Aside:Infrastructure (2%, including RI)
C
C
C
C
C
Source: U.S. Department of State, December 2025 Visa Bulletin, Final Action Dates Chart
The December 2025 Visa Bulletin shows no change from last month’s bulletin for employment-based categories for Dates for Filing, except for Certain Religious Workers, which changed for all countries from unauthorized to February 15, 2021, and the EB-5 unreserved category for China, which advanced by three weeks to July 22, 2016.
Dates for Filing of Employment-Based Visa Applications
Employment- Based
All ChargeabilityAreas ExceptThose Listed
CHINA-mainlandborn
INDIA
MEXICO
PHILIPPINES
1st
C
15MAY23
15APR23
C
C
2nd
15JUL24
01DEC21
01DEC13
15JUL24
15JUL24
3rd
01JUL23
01JAN22
15AUG14
01JUL23
01JUL23
Other Workers
01DEC21
01OCT18
15AUG14
01DEC21
01DEC21
4th
15FEB21
15FEB21
15FEB21
15FEB21
15FEB21
Certain Religious Workers
15FEB21
15FEB21
15FEB21
15FEB21
15FEB21
5th Unreserved(including C5, T5, I5, R5, NU, RU)
C
22JUL16
01APR22
C
C
5th Set Aside:Rural (20%, including NR, RR)
C
C
C
C
C
5th Set Aside:High Unemployment (10%, including NH, RH)
C
C
C
C
C
5th Set Aside:Infrastructure (2%, including RI)
C
C
C
C
C
Source: U.S. Department of State, December 2025 Visa Bulletin, Dates for Filing Chart
Key Takeaways
Applicants who became eligible to file their adjustment requests in November 2025 under the Dates for Filing Chart will have at least another month to submit their applications.
Comparing the 2025 DHS and DOS Approaches to Public Charge Inadmissibility
In November 2025, both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) signaled changes to how the U.S. government will determine whether visa applicants or those seeking permanent residence are “likely to become a public charge.” While both agencies are moving toward a broader, more discretionary approach, their guidance reveals important similarities and differences that may affect immigrants, nonimmigrants, and their advocates.
DHS Proposed Rule: Rescinding the 2022 Regulations
On Nov. 19, 2025, DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) indicating its intent to rescind the 2022 public charge regulations. DHS plans to withdraw the 2022 rule, which narrowly defined public charge and limited the types of public benefits considered (mainly cash assistance and long-term institutionalization) because the agency believes it is inconsistent with congressional intent and too restrictive. Officers would be guided by both statutory “minimum factors” (age, health, family status, assets/resources, and education/skills) and any additional evidence relevant to an individual’s case showing self-sufficiency. The rule would apply to applicants for admission or adjustment of status within the United States (e.g., those filing Form I-485 with USCIS).
Key Points:
Restores Officer Discretion: DHS officers would once again consider the “totality of the circumstances,” not just a narrow set of benefits or factors.
Any Means-Tested Benefits: Officers may take into account any means-tested public benefit—not just cash assistance and long-term care—when assessing self-sufficiency.
No Bright-Line Rule: There are no fixed criteria; instead, each case is judged on its unique facts.
Statutory Minimum Factors: Age, health, family status, assets/resources, education/skills, and (when required) the Affidavit of Support.
Forward-Looking: The determination is prospective—whether the individual is likely to become a public charge at any time.
DOS Consular Guidance: Implementing Public Charge for Visa Applicants
It appears that DOS issued new guidance to consular officers around the world, updating the way they assess whether visa applicants –both immigrant and most nonimmigrant (temporary)– are “likely to become a public charge” under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 212(a)(4). An unofficial copy of the cable dated Nov. 6, 2025, offers insight into how U.S. consular officers are being instructed to implement public charge policy. This guidance marks a renewed focus on self-sufficiency for both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants and clarifies what evidence officers should evaluate during visa interviews.
Key Points:
Broad Applicability: Most visa categories are subject to public charge review unless they fall into specific exempt categories (as listed in 9 FAM 302.8-2(B)(6)).
Comprehensive Review: Consular officers must review all available evidence—petitions, interviews, medical reports, affidavits, financial and employment documents, and any record of public benefits use (domestic or abroad).
No Bright-Line Test: No single factor (except lacking a required Affidavit of Support) is dispositive; decisions must be based on the “totality of the circumstances.”
Statutory Minimum Factors: Same as DHS—age, health, family status, assets/resources, education/skills, and (when required) Affidavit of Support.
Benefit Use—Past and Present: Both cash benefits and long-term institutionalization in the U.S., as well as similar assistance received abroad, are relevant. Officers are also told to consider use of non-cash assistance (like food, housing, or private charity) as a possible indicator of future need, even if not strictly covered by regulation.
Burden of Proof: Rests entirely on the applicant to prove they are not likely to become a public charge.
Special Guidance for Affidavit of Support: While necessary for many family-based (and some employment-based) cases, a sufficient affidavit does not guarantee approval; the credibility and ability of the sponsor is also scrutinized.
Key Contrasts of Potential DHS Guidance and Recent DOS Guidance
Breadth of Evidence: DOS explicitly encourages officers to consider any evidence of need—public or private, U.S. or foreign. DHS’s proposal is less explicit about foreign aid but restores broad discretion, which might include such evidence.
Application Frequency: At consulates, even repeat nonimmigrant applicants (e.g., tourists) may face public charge review every time they apply. In the U.S., the focus is on admission or adjustment.
Documentation: DOS guidance makes clear that applicants must provide and, if requested, verify financial and other supporting documents. DHS’s proposed rule might require similar evidence, but details may come in future policy guidance.
Affidavit of Support: For DOS, even a technically sufficient affidavit is scrutinized for credibility and the sponsor’s financial reality. DHS’s approach is similar, but with less emphasis in the proposed rule on sponsor credibility.
Conclusion: Impacts on Applicants
Both DHS and DOS are moving to a more discretionary, case-by-case approach that looks beyond a narrow list of public benefits or financial factors. Applicants—whether seeking a green card in the United States or a visa abroad—may wish to document their financial stability, health, family situation, and employability in detail. Past use of any public assistance, even outside the United States, may be considered, though it is not automatically disqualifying.
The bottom line: Self-sufficiency is the touchstone, and officers at both DHS and DOS will have broad latitude to deny applications if they find an applicant is likely to become a public charge, based on the totality of the evidence.
Applicants should monitor for new interpretive guidance from DHS and updates to the DOS Foreign Affairs Manual as these policies evolve.
Big Law Redefined- Immigration Insights Episode 21 | Global Mobility in Motion- Trends, Strategies, and the Future of International Workforce Movement [Podcast]
In this timely podcast episode of the Immigration Insights series, host Kate Kalmykov, co-chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Global Immigration & Compliance Practice, sits down with Jason Rogers, Senior Partner at Newland Chase Advisory Services, to explore the dynamic landscape of global mobility and employee immigration.
Together, they discuss how technology, evolving visa regimes, and shifting international policies are transforming the way companies deploy talent across borders.
From the impact of recent U.S. immigration changes and rising costs, to emerging “hot spots” like Poland, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America, this episode provides a comprehensive overview of the opportunities and challenges facing employers in today’s competitive race for global talent.
Jason and Kate also delve into the critical role of compliance, tax, local employment laws, and data protection, while considering how AI and digital innovation are shaping the future of workforce mobility.
Whether you’re an HR leader, legal professional, or business executive, this episode offers actionable insights into building business-friendly global mobility programs.
EEOC’s New Anti-American Bias Materials Reinforce National Origin Discrimination Risks
On November 20, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a new one‑page technical assistance document, “Discrimination Against American Workers Is Against the Law,” and updated its national origin discrimination landing page in an ongoing effort to educate on anti-American bias—a key priority of the Trump administration. These materials emphasize that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all workers from national origin discrimination, including protecting American workers from national origin bias, and stress that nothing justifies illegal national origin discrimination—whether rooted in labor cost, customer preference, or stereotypes. The EEOC’s non-binding technical assistance reflects an ongoing enforcement focus on unlawful anti‑American bias with a focus on immigration related issues, including favoring foreign workers and or visa holders over American workers.
Quick Hits
The EEOC issued a one‑page technical assistance document and updated its national origin landing page, both making clear that Title VII protects all workers—including Americans—and clearly stating potential business rationales do not justify national origin discrimination or anti-American bias.
Job ads preferring visa statuses, disparate treatment in applications, assignments, or pay, and unlawful harassment or retaliation are identified as top risk and enforcement areas in the ongoing effort to protect Americans against national origin bias.
The technical assistance document suggests employers can expect a multi‑agency enforcement approach from the EEOC, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Labor.
Understanding the EEOC’s Action
Title VII prohibits using protected characteristics as a factor in employment decisions unless narrow exceptions exist, such as a bona fide occupational qualification. Title VII’s prohibition on national origin includes treating applicants or employees unfavorably or favorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, due to ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background, even if that perception is incorrect. The EEOC’s technical assistance document makes plain that preferences for foreign workers, including preferences tied to H1-B status, can constitute unlawful national origin discrimination when they result in disfavored treatment of American workers.
Title VII bars discrimination across all aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, benefits, and any other term or condition of employment. The technical assistance materials highlight several recurring risk areas:
Job advertisements that express preferences or requirements based on national origin or visa status (e.g., “H‑1B preferred” or “H‑1B only”) are unlawful.
Disparate treatment can arise where employers make it meaningfully harder for U.S. workers to apply or advance compared to foreign visa holders, including through more burdensome application processes or materially different criteria.
Pay discrimination includes paying visa guest workers less than similarly situated American workers without legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.
Harassment based on national origin is unlawful when sufficiently severe or frequent to create a hostile work environment, or when it results in adverse employment actions; harassment can be perpetrated by supervisors, coworkers, or even customers.
Retaliation is prohibited when employers take adverse action because a worker opposed discrimination, participated in an investigation, or filed a charge with the EEOC.
The EEOC reiterates that common business justifications do not validate national origin discrimination. Customer or client preference, perceived productivity differences, “work ethic” stereotypes, or lower labor costs—including practices tied to off‑the‑books pay or misuses of visa wage requirements—cannot lawfully support employment decisions that favor one national origin group over another or that prefer foreign workers over American workers.
Next Steps
Employers may consider promptly assessing policies and practices that may favor workers of particular national origins or visa statuses over American workers. This includes reviewing recruiting and advertising content, application, and selection processes, pay practices for similarly situated workers, and workplace conduct expectations. Training managers and recruiters on Title VII’s even‑handed protections, auditing for disparate treatment indicators, and documenting neutral, job‑related criteria for employment decisions are important steps to mitigate risk. Where immigration‑related processes intersect with employment decisions, ensure coordination with all decisionmakers to avoid policies that create national origin–based disparities.
December 2025 Visa Bulletin – A Year-end Gift of Movement
The State Department has published the December Visa Bulletin. While all categories stalled in November, December will see all priority dates progressing modestly, from 1 week to 2 months. Moreover, USCIS will continue accepting the Dates for Filing chart in December, allowing from 5 to 15.5 months of additional filing time, depending on nationality and category, with India the clear front-runner here.
Below is a summary that includes Final Action Dates and changes from the previous month, but first – some background if you’re new to these blog posts. If you’re familiar with the Visa Bulletin, feel free to skip the following bullet points:
The Visa Bulletin is released monthly by the U.S. Department of State in collaboration with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which then releases two charts – “Dates for Filing” and “Final Action Dates” – and designates which chart will apply that month.
If USCIS designates Dates for Filing and your priority date (that is, the date you were placed on the waiting list) is earlier than the cutoff date for your nationality and category in that chart, you may submit your I‑485 adjustment of status application (if you’re eligible to apply with USCIS from inside the United States). However, USCIS cannot approve the application and issue your green card until your priority date is current in Final Action Dates.
If you are applying from outside the United States, you cannot file your DS‑260 immigrant visa application until the National Visa Center notifies you to do so, and your home embassy cannot issue you an immigrant visa until your priority date is current in Final Action Dates.
Now for the December Visa Bulletin:
China gains in all categories:
EB-1 advances 1 month to January 22, 2023
EB-2 advances 2 months to June 1, 2021
EB-3 Professionals advances 1 month to April 1, 2021
EB-3 Other Workers advances 1 week to December 8, 2017
India also progresses in all categories:
EB-1 advances 1 month to March 15, 2022
EB-2 advances5 months to May 15, 2013
EB-3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers advance 1 month to September 22, 2013
All Other Countries moves ahead in three categories:
EB-1 remains current
EB-2 advances 2 months to February 1, 2024
EB-3 Professionals advances 2 weeks to April 15, 2023
EB-3 Other Workers advances 17 days to August 1, 2021
NOTE 1: USCIS will accept I-485 applications in December based on the Department of State’s more favorable Dates for Filing chart, which allows from 5 to 15.5 months of additional filing time depending on nationality and category:
Chinese nationals gain almost 5 months to file in EB‑1; 8 months in EB-2; and 10 months in EB‑3 Professionals/Other Workers.
Indian nationals gain 14 months to file in EB-1; 8 months in EB-2; and almost 1 year in EB-3 Professionals/Other Workers.
Nationals of all other countries may file their I-485s in advance of their priority dates being current by 7.5 months in EB-2; 15.5 months in EB-3 Professionals; and 4.5 months in EB-3 Other Workers.
Further Contributions to this article by Carol Schlenker