Cognizant Responds as US Labour Department Suspends Green Card Filings
The US Department of Labour has suspended permanent labour certification filings by Cognizant amid a fraud investigation, according to a report. The matter is at the charging stage and remains undecided.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 6:49 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 9, 2026, 6:49 a.m. ETFirst report
US Labour Department Suspends Cognizant Green Card Filings Amid Fraud Investigation
The US Department of Labour has suspended permanent labour certification filings by Cognizant, a technology services company, amid a fraud investigation, according to the New Indian Express. The suspension was reported on September 9, 2026.
The report states that the department has instituted an administrative proceeding and issued a notice. The respondents are Cognizant and Cloudera, a software company. The allegations against Cognizant were not disclosed in the article.
The matter is only at the charging stage and has not been decided. No final determination has been made, and the investigation is ongoing.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- US suspends Cognizant green-card filings amid fraud investigationnewindianexpress.com
Revision history
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 10:53current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 10:49current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.