AI Generated Image (not the actual filings in this case)
A Justice Department judge refused to let a job applicant use Cisco’s public H-1B filings to dig into its hiring, holding that a shared job title does not make another worker’s paperwork relevant to his claim.
H-1B LCA records that Cisco Systems filed for what an applicant counted as more than 100 hardware engineering positions are not fair game in a citizenship discrimination case over one rejected application, an administrative law judge at the Justice Department’s Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) ruled in an order dated Nov. 5 and released Nov. 13. Judge Andrea R. Carroll-Tipton denied Ravi Sharma’s motion to inspect the labor condition applications and H-1B petitions, finding he had not tied them to the single “Hardware Engineer – FPGA” opening he applied for on Aug. 27, 2024, and closed discovery in the case.
The order is a discovery ruling, not a decision on whether Cisco discriminated. Its importance is in the method it rejects. Sharma is one of the repeat filers behind the wave of private citizenship discrimination complaints now reaching Meta, AMD and Workday, and public visa data is an obvious tool for those cases. Every LCA an employer files on Form ETA-9035 with the Labor Department lists the job title, worksite and wage, and the department publishes that data. A complainant can count those filings and argue they show a preference for visa workers. This order says that counting, alone, does not open an employer’s files.
115 positions versus one requisition
Sharma’s motion relied on LCAs covering what he said were at least 115 Hardware Engineer positions in Santa Clara County, a figure he reached by adding six filings for 25, 25, 25, 15, 10 and 15 workers. He argued Cisco had opened 115 separate requisitions and asked for the LCAs and petitions, the job descriptions, the resumes of the visa workers hired, and their interview questions, answers and feedback.
Cisco answered that none of the LCAs referenced Requisition No. 1427192, the posting at issue, and said it filled that job with one person, a lawful permanent resident, not an H-1B worker. The judge sided with Cisco on relevance. “While there is a universal ‘title’ of Hardware Engineer identified,” she wrote, the allegation is narrowly focused on whether Sharma was discriminated against when he was not selected. She found that “the LCA’s do not relate to that discrete requisition,” based on the evidence Cisco attached, and that Sharma had not shown how filings for people hired into other positions could bear on his rejection.
The legal frame is standard. OCAHO’s rules at 28 C.F.R. 68.18(b) allow discovery of anything relevant, and the tribunal reads relevance broadly, but additional discovery beyond the limits set at the prehearing conference requires good cause, which OCAHO precedent describes as a reasonable basis. The order calls showing potential relevance a “cornerstone” of that showing. Cisco had already produced its records on the requisition itself and affidavits from managers on recruiting and hiring.
What the H-1B LCA records ruling means for employers and applicants
The complaint sets the boundaries. The ruling rests on how narrowly the case was framed: one applicant, one opening. It does not hold that LCAs are never discoverable. A complaint alleging a broader hiring practice could support broader requests, and that is the open question the next complainants are likely to test. The order is also only one judge’s discovery ruling, though OCAHO lists it as a published decision.
Requisition records do the work. Cisco won because it could show, with documents, that the LCAs and the contested job did not overlap. For sponsoring employers, the practical effect is that clean requisition-level files, showing who applied, who was hired and on what basis, are the first line of defense when public visa filings are used against them. That matters more as private cases multiply, since even claims that end in early settlements or dismissal cost time and legal fees.
With discovery closed, the judge told the parties to meet and confer on any remaining disputes.
- Dec. 4, 2026: deadline for any motions to compel.
- Jan. 15, 2027: deadline for motions for summary decision if no motion to compel is filed.
- Nov. 30 and Dec. 14, 2026: answers due from AMD and Meta in Sharma’s other OCAHO cases.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources
- Sharma v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 22 OCAHO no. 1705f (Nov. 5, 2026), Order Denying Motion for Additional Discovery
- Justice Department, OCAHO decisions
- 28 C.F.R. 68.18, OCAHO discovery rules
- 8 U.S.C. 1324b, unfair immigration-related employment practices
- Labor Department, Office of Foreign Labor Certification performance and disclosure data
About the Author
