I worked at Google in a technical role, and Google sponsored me for permanent residency through the PERM/I-140 process. During that process, I requested a complete copy of the I-140 filing (petition to sponsor a foreign national for an employment-based green card) associated with my employment. Google did not provide it. Instead, I was given the signature page that I was required to sign. I eventually obtained the complete filing myself through a USCIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. What I discovered exposed serious problems with Google’s PERM practices:
I. Google used a different job classification with a much lower prevailing wage when recruiting U.S. workers during the PERM process. The occupational classification used for my permanent residency process was different from the job I actually performed at Google. The PERM position also carried a dramatically lower prevailing wage than the prevailing wage reflected in Google’s H-1B immigration records for my actual job. This was not an insignificant administrative difference. PERM exists specifically to test whether qualified U.S. workers are available for the sponsored job. Google tested the labor market using one position while employing the sponsored immigrant worker in a materially different, substantially higher-paid position. That undermines the labor-market test that Google’s recruitment of U.S. workers through the PERM process is supposed to perform. Advertising PERM roles with a lower prevailing wage when the corresponding jobs actually performed by the sponsored worker had significantly higher prevailing wages points to potential immigration fraud.
II. Google routed PERM applicants through a separate application channel. Google’s PERM newspaper advertisements instructed applicants to send their applications to numbered @google.com email addresses (e.g. 3423@google.com) instead of applying through Google’s normal Careers website. These applications likely did not enter Google’s ordinary applicant-tracking workflow used by recruiters and hiring managers. Google therefore maintained a separate recruitment channel for workers responding to PERM advertisements. PERM’s labor-market test cannot meaningfully determine whether qualified U.S. workers are available when applicants responding to that test are segregated from the company’s normal hiring process. Google should disclose exactly how many U.S. workers applied through these PERM email addresses, who reviewed their applications, how many received interviews, and the reasons each applicant was rejected. Routing PERM applications through a separate channel with the effect of denying applicants ordinary hiring consideration points to potential immigration fraud.
III. Google advertised different job requirements to PERM applicants than in its ordinary Careers advertisements for corresponding jobs. For example, qualifications that Google ordinarily divided into minimum qualifications and preferred qualifications were presented together in PERM recruitment without that distinction. The practical effect was to present U.S. workers responding to PERM advertisements with a more restrictive description of the position than applicants going through Google’s ordinary hiring process. PERM’s labor-market test is not meaningful when the employer changes the way qualifications are presented depending on whether the applicant is participating in PERM recruitment or ordinary competitive hiring. Advertising more restrictive requirements in PERM newspaper ads than in corresponding Google Careers postings points to potential immigration fraud.
IV. Google required me to sign the signature portion of immigration paperwork without providing me the complete immigration filing, despite my explicit request for it. I therefore had to sign a filing without being allowed to inspect all of the information Google and its immigration counsel were submitting in connection with my employment. I discovered what had actually been submitted only after obtaining the filing directly from USCIS through FOIA. Workers should not have to use the Freedom of Information Act to discover what their employer submitted to the federal government in an immigration process conducted on their behalf. Not providing immigrants complete copies of employment-based immigration documents they are required to sign in the course of their employment prevents them from discovering and reporting potential immigration fraud being carried out through filings associated with their employment.
V. Finally, this goes far beyond one employee. Google has obtained ~17K PERM labor certifications across its roles since 2018. Therefore, the potential scale of these practices is staggering. The affected U.S. workers include not only the job applicants responding to the PERM newspaper ads described above but also qualified U.S. workers who didn’t apply because a PERM role with a lower prevailing wage or more stringent requirements was advertised instead of the actual role with a higher prevailing wage or less stringent requirements. The use of lower-wage job classifications in PERM recruitment, the separate PERM recruitment channel, differences between PERM and ordinary job advertisements, and Google’s handling of immigration paperwork warrant investigation across thousands of Google PERM cases. These issues concern how Google operated its PERM-based immigration process. The Department of Labor is supposed to certify that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available for the job before an employer receives permanent labor certification for a foreign worker. Google’s practices described above compromised that safeguard.
Google should publicly disclose:
– How PERM positions corresponded to the actual jobs performed by the immigrants Google sponsored;
– Why requirements presented in PERM advertisements differed from Google’s ordinary Careers advertisements;
– Why materially different occupational classifications and prevailing wages were used and in what share of PERM cases;
– How applications submitted to numbered @google.com PERM addresses were recorded, reviewed, and dispositioned;
– Whether those applicants ever entered Google’s normal applicant-tracking and recruiter/hiring-manager review processes;
– How many qualified U.S. applicants were rejected and Google’s documented job-related reasons for rejecting them; and
– Why sponsored employees were required to sign immigration filings without receiving the complete documents.
I raised these allegations directly with Google including its C-suite. I specifically invited Google to identify factual errors in these allegations, but Google provided me with no corrections. I am publishing the underlying facts so that workers, regulators, journalists, and others can examine Google’s PERM practices for themselves.