Employers with remote IT workforces increasingly report receiving large numbers of applications containing fabricated credentials, stolen identities or other indicators of fraud. This trend creates a difficult task for recruiting teams charged with distinguishing genuine applicants from individuals misrepresenting their identities, locations or qualifications.
The risks are not merely administrative. In December 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment of 14 North Korean nationals who allegedly obtained remote IT employment with U.S. companies through false identities, thereby gaining access to employer systems and data.
This threat is ongoing. In October 2026, DOJ announced coordinated enforcement actions involving searches of multiple known or suspected “laptop farms” in Texas and the seizure of approximately 187 computer devices used by North Korean IT workers. DOJ reported that the broader schemes affected more than 70 U.S. companies.
The screening challenge becomes especially complex when an employer is recruiting in connection with an application for permanent labor certification under the Program Electronic Review Management, or PERM process. PERM is generally the first step of the permanent residency sponsorship process for U.S. employers on behalf of foreign national employees. It requires that those employers post a series of advertisements for those roles in various types of media and review all résumés received to determine whether any U.S. worker applicants are able, willing, qualified and available to fill the job before sponsoring a foreign worker. When those roles are in the IT field and permit fully remote work, employers increasingly are receiving hundreds of résumés, many of which appear on their face to be from fully qualified U.S. workers but are actually fraudulent.
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations require that employers filing PERM applications prepare and retain a recruitment report that must be submitted to DOL in the event of an audit. The report must describe, “… the recruitment steps undertaken and the results achieved, the number of hires, and, if applicable, the number of U.S. workers rejected, categorized by the lawful job-related reasons for such rejections.” 20 C.F.R. §656.17(g)(1).
When preparing a recruitment report for a PERM application, employers face denial of a PERM application if DOL determines that they improperly rejected even one able, willing, qualified and available U.S. worker. This places employers in a uniquely difficult position. Insufficient screening may expose an employer’s systems, information, equipment or personnel to a fraudulent applicant, while an unsupported rejection of a qualified U.S. worker may result in denial of the PERM application. Because the risk of erring in either direction is substantial, employers cannot afford to make these determinations incorrectly.
In light of the foregoing risks, it is imperative to create a consistent policy and procedure for addressing legitimate security concerns in the context of PERM recruitment.
Employers should develop a written fraud-screening protocol and apply it consistently to all applicants for the position. The protocol should be incorporated into the employer’s ordinary recruiting process rather than implemented only for PERM cases. This may include such measures as verification of government-issued identification before final interviews; confirmation that applicants are physically located where they claim to be located; validation of employment history and educational credentials; and
technical interviews designed to confirm claimed skills and experience. The key is to maintain consistency across all job openings, not just those involving a PERM application.
A recruitment report should never state simply that an applicant was rejected because the employer believed the résumé was fraudulent. Instead, employers should document specific objective facts, such as refusal to participate in a scheduled interview, inability to verify claimed employment history, submission of conflicting identity documents, and material discrepancies between the résumé and interview responses.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) decisions repeatedly emphasize that employers must investigate further when a résumé suggests a reasonable possibility that the applicant meets the job’s minimum requirements. While DOL has not issued any guidance to date on how employers should investigate a potentially fraudulent applicant, it is likely that where an applicant appears qualified on paper, and if it is possible that fraud concerns may be resolved through follow-up, BALCA will impose a burden on employers to follow up with those applicants. A brief email exchange, phone screen or interview will create a stronger record than an immediate rejection based solely on superficial fraud indicators.
One of the most defensible approaches is to evaluate applicants in two distinct stages—an initial screening stage to determine whether a résumé indicates a facially qualified worker in terms of education and experience; and a second stage to verify identity, location and credentials. Maintaining this separation helps demonstrate that the employer first assessed whether the applicant met the stated requirements before considering whether the applicant was genuine.
All documentation related to both steps of this analysis should be retained so that it can be submitted to DOL in the event of an audit.
Employers should resist the temptation to treat suspected fraud as a shortcut to rejection. In the PERM context, the safest course is often not immediate rejection but rather a documented investigation using the same verification procedures the employer ordinarily employs for all applicants. A carefully documented verification process can simultaneously protect the employer’s systems from fraudulent actors and create a defensible record demonstrating compliance with PERM recruitment requirements.
Additional Assistance
For more information, please contact a member of our Immigration Practice Team or the Phillips Lytle attorney with whom you have a relationship.
Receive firm communications, legal news and industry alerts delivered to your inbox.
Subscribe Now
