Here's a problem I often see when technical people, particular engineers, try to analyze legal issues: they tend to look for technical compliance (or noncompliance) or use standards like absolute proof but the law simply doesn't work that way.
Legal decisions tend to come down to things like witness credibility, a holistic view of the facts and whatever evidence standard is being used (eg preponderence of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence).
An example I like to use is back when prosecutions for downloading something illegal were more in the news. A technical person might argue "an IP address doens't mean anything. It could've been anybody". But the law will look at the totality of the evidence (eg browser history, time when it happened, were you home at the time, whether such media was found on your PC, etc. And the way the Rules of Evidence work, you might not even be able to suggest certain alternative theories (eg "my Wifi was hacked") without evidence.
Another good example is sponsoring someone for a marriage-based green card. You need to be in a bona fide marriage and you'll get people who will look for technical compliance. Is having a joint bank account enough? Photos? A joint lease? Filing a joint tax return? Those are some of the factors USCIS uses but no single factor is sufficient. USCIS will look at the totality of the evidence in determining if a marriage is bona fide.
so back to PERM abuse, arguments like "we made an error with the email address" or "we accidentally lost some US citizen applications" or even "we complied with the technical requirements for advertising a position" may not carry the day because the totality of the evidence may still amount to immigration fraud.
Lastly, it should be noted that a lack of a prosecution (yet?) is not proof of legality or compliance either.
[1]: https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/28/cloudera_doj_employme...
[2]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-labor-depart...
[3]: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-rights-labour-r...
Prosecution or lack of prosecution in this area are both political. The previous DOJ also sued SpaceX for not hiring asylees. I am not aware of an actual court victory. These tend to settle out of court and both sides get to claim victory and make headlines.
>they tend to look for technical compliance
I'm taking a more holistic view here, which is that the whole thing is so farcical that enforcing compliance here does more harm than good. Look at the operation that chained Hyundai workers and deported them for a photo op. What did it achieve? It created a diplomatic incident, the battery plant stopped producing batteries, and the state lost tax revenue.
>Those are some of the factors USCIS uses but no single factor is sufficient.
That's a whole different can of worms. There is endless litigation over things that USCIS does in its infinite wisdom. Fortunately, we have the APA and Loper Bright overturned Chevron, so it should restore some sanity to it.
Aside: >prosecutions for downloading something
There is no real prosecution for downloading. It's only uploading. The technical definition is the same as the legal one. The way DMCA prosecution works is that if you are in a torrent swarm and are uploading, you are distributing content, which is easier to prove under copyright law.