The US suspension of eight technology companies from the permanent labour certification programme has created a major immigration headline, but the filing data cited in the report points to a less dramatic immediate effect on Indian IT firms. Companies including Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Infosys, Wipro and HCL had already reduced their applications for permanent labour certification, while industry representatives said local hiring in the United States had expanded.
That distinction matters because the PERM process is not the same as the overall movement of Indian technology professionals to the US. A permanent labour certification issued by the US Department of Labour allows an employer to hire a foreign worker permanently. The PERM application is the first step towards a green card for professionals working in the country on temporary visas. A decline in applications therefore indicates a change in the route to permanent residency, not necessarily the end of cross-border technology employment.
The US action covers eight companies: TCS, Infosys, Wipro, HCL, Capgemini, Cognizant, Microsoft and Adobe. The companies hire significant numbers of professionals from India. The stated US rationale, as reported by Economic Times, is that the practice had shut out Americans from the job market. The policy therefore sits at the intersection of immigration administration, employer recruitment and the political question of how foreign workers fit into the US labour market.
Yet the data cited in the report suggests that the affected Indian companies had already been using the PERM route less intensively. TCS filed two applications in the US financial year 2026, compared with 513 in 2025 and 1,804 in 2024. HCL filed 59 applications in 2026, down from 323 in 2025. Capgemini filed 98 applications in 2026, compared with 361 in 2025 and 300 in 2024.
The figures are not uniform across companies or years. Wipro filed 257 applications in 2024 and 523 in 2025. Of its 257 applications in 2024, 169 were denied and 88 were withdrawn. Infosys filed 87 applications in 2024, while the report said data for 2025 and 2026 was not available. Cognizant filed 1,236 applications in 2024, but comparable data for the following two years was also unavailable.
These gaps limit what can be concluded from company-level comparisons. The available figures show a decline for some large employers, but they do not provide a complete picture of all Indian professionals in the United States, the number of workers awaiting permanent residency, or the duration of any immigration backlog. They also do not establish how many employees were directly affected by the suspension.
The broader totals offer another measure of scale. Indian IT companies accounted for fewer than 1,400 of the 117,849 PERM certifications issued in the previous year, according to figures cited in the report. That was less than 2% of the total. Vineet Nayar, former chief executive of HCL Technologies, said in a post on X that the direct impact could therefore be smaller than the initial reaction suggested.
The number is important because it separates the visibility of the companies from their share of the programme. TCS, Infosys, Wipro, HCL, Capgemini and Cognizant are major employers and highly recognisable brands in India. Their inclusion in the US action attracts significant attention. But their combined share of PERM certifications, as presented in the report, remains relatively small compared with the total programme.
The reduction in filings also reflects a wider change in how Indian technology companies organise their US operations. The National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) said Indian technology companies had significantly reduced their dependence on H-1B visas over the years, while expanding local hiring and building a stronger domestic workforce in the US.
This does not mean that temporary work visas or permanent-residency applications have ceased to matter. It means that the workforce model is becoming less dependent on moving every role through the same immigration pathway. Companies can combine US-based hiring with international delivery teams and a smaller number of employees seeking permanent residency through PERM. The supplied material does not quantify the relative size of these workforce segments, but it does establish the direction described by NASSCOM and TCS.
TCS said its PERM applications had been in single digits in the last two years and that it did not expect the suspension to affect its workforce strategy or customer engagements. NASSCOM similarly said the number of employees transitioning from H-1B visas to permanent residency through PERM was relatively limited.
The statements from TCS and NASSCOM are significant because they frame the suspension as a restriction on one administrative channel rather than an immediate disruption to client delivery. They also show how companies are presenting their workforce strategies in response to a more restrictive immigration environment: less reliance on visa-led staffing and greater emphasis on hiring within the US.
For Indian technology workers, however, the effect cannot be assessed only through the number of applications filed by companies. The PERM process represents a route to long-term security for eligible foreign workers. If that route is suspended for an employer, employees who expected to move from temporary status towards permanent residency may face uncertainty even when the company continues hiring and serving customers.
The report points to this tension by describing how a PERM suspension could trap technology workers in a green-card visa cycle. The available material does not establish how many workers face that situation, but the institutional distinction is clear: a company may be able to maintain its US operations while individual employees lose access to a particular pathway towards permanent residency.
That difference is central to understanding the policy. Corporate continuity and worker security are related, but they are not identical. A company can adapt by hiring more locally or changing its staffing mix. An employee already in the United States may have fewer options if a permanent-residency application cannot proceed through the employer. The supplied evidence supports the existence of this structural tension, but not a quantified estimate of its scale.
## A shift from visa dependence to local hiring
The case also illustrates how immigration policy can reshape the geography of technology employment. When companies rely more on local hiring, employment growth takes place within the US labour market rather than being supplied primarily through transfers from India or other countries. For Indian IT companies, that can reduce exposure to visa restrictions while changing the balance between offshore delivery, international mobility and local workforce development.
NASSCOM’s statement provides the clearest institutional explanation in the supplied material. It links the decline in PERM applications to a broader reduction in dependence on H-1B visas and to the expansion of domestic US workforces. TCS’s statement reinforces that interpretation by saying its low recent filing numbers would not alter its workforce strategy or customer engagements.
At the same time, the available filing data should not be treated as a complete measure of employment. PERM filings are applications for a specific immigration process. They do not represent total headcount, total recruitment, total visa use or the number of Indian professionals working for a company. A low filing count may indicate a limited need for the pathway, a different workforce structure, or incomplete availability of data. The report does not identify which explanation applies in each company’s case.
The figures also show why a single-year comparison can be misleading. TCS’s filings fell from 1,804 in 2024 to 513 in 2025 and two in 2026. HCL’s filings fell from 323 in 2025 to 59 in 2026. Capgemini’s filings declined from 361 in 2025 to 98 in 2026. But Wipro’s filings increased from 257 in 2024 to 523 in 2025, while data for some companies and years was unavailable. The pattern is therefore one of overall reduced use among several firms, not a uniform movement across the industry.
The timing of the figures is another limitation. The report refers to the US financial years 2025 and 2026, while some company data is unavailable for one or both years. Without a complete series, it is not possible to distinguish the effect of the latest suspension from earlier changes in company hiring, immigration strategy or filing behaviour. The evidence does, however, show that reductions preceded or accompanied the current policy action for several companies.
## The policy question is larger than eight companies
The US suspension raises a question about how immigration enforcement and corporate workforce planning interact. The action is directed at named companies and concerns access to a permanent labour certification programme. The response from industry bodies and employers focuses on the relatively small number of recent applications and the growth of local hiring. These are different lenses on the same system.
From the government’s perspective, the issue is whether the programme protects opportunities for American workers. From the companies’ perspective, the operational question is whether customer engagements and workforce plans can continue. From the employee’s perspective, the question is whether a temporary work arrangement can lead to a stable long-term status. The report provides statements from the government rationale, industry representatives and TCS, but it does not include a detailed account of affected workers or the administrative terms of the suspension.
That missing information is important for assessing the policy’s consequences. The number of PERM applications tells readers how frequently companies used the system. It does not show how many individual workers were in the pipeline, how long applications had been pending, or whether other routes to permanent residency remain available to them. Those questions would require additional official immigration data and company-level disclosures beyond the material supplied here.
The immediate evidence therefore supports a measured conclusion. The suspension is significant because it targets a formal route to permanent residency used by foreign technology workers and involves some of the largest employers of Indian professionals. But its direct effect on the operating strategies of Indian IT companies may be limited because PERM filings had already declined and local hiring had increased.
For urban and economic systems, the issue is not confined to immigration paperwork. Cross-border technology employment influences where skilled workers live, how companies distribute offices and delivery centres, and how professional households plan their long-term lives. The supplied report does not provide figures on settlement, housing or city-level employment, so those consequences cannot be quantified here. It does establish that decisions taken through an employment-certification programme can affect the stability of workers whose careers span multiple countries.
The next developments to watch are the implementation of the suspension, any further official explanation of its scope, and evidence about workers already moving through the PERM process. Company filing data for 2025 and 2026, where currently unavailable, would also help establish whether the reported decline is broad-based. Until that information is available, the evidence points to a policy shock with potentially sharper consequences for individual visa holders than for the overall operating model of India’s large technology companies.
