Palmer v. Tata Consulting Services

── Palmer v. Tata Consulting Services ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: Private Civil Federal Case: 25-40368 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED April 29, 2026 No. 25-40368 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America ex rel. Jack Palmer, Jr., on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Tata Consulting Services, Ltd., Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-72 ______________________________ Before Willett, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judge: After auditing Tata Consulting Services, Ltd. and its immigration practices, Jack Palmer initiated this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA). Palmer alleged that Tata fraudulently acquired thousands of visas for foreign workers and underpaid visa-dependent employees in violation of federal law. Given the FCA’s requirements for recovery, Palmer framed his allegations as “reverse false claims,” i.e., a failure by Tata to transmit money owed to the federal government, by paying for cheaper visas under false pretenses and by failing to withhold taxes on the required higher wages for Case: 25-40368 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 No. 25-40368 certain visa recipients. The district court rejected both theories of liability and dismissed Palmer’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Because Palmer has not alleged any obligation of Tata to transmit money to the Government, he fails to allege an actionable claim under the FCA, and we affirm the judgment of the district court. I. In 2016, Comcast hired Jack Palmer to audit Tata Consulting Services, Ltd. and its immigration practices. Tata is a major IT and professional services firm, based in India but with significant operations in the United States. Tata employs roughly 30,000 workers in the United States, about 75% of whom require either an H-1B visa, an L-1A visa, or a B-1 visa. Because the differences between these visa types are pertinent to Palmer’s claims, we briefly sketch each type. H-1B visas are intended for temporary workers in specialized fields where the supply of qualified Americans is inadequate to meet employer demand. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(1)(ii)(B). To acquire an H-1B visa, an employer must file an application with the Department of Labor certifying that the foreign worker’s role presently exists and remains to be filled. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.730. The employer must further certify that the visa recipient will be paid the higher of (a) wages paid to similarly situated American employees or (b) the prevailing rate for the intended role. See id. § 655.731(a). Even after making this application, receiving an H-1B visa is not a certainty: The number of visas available each year is strictly capped, and applicants are subject to a lottery system. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(1)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iv)(B). According to Palmer’s complaint, the total fees payable for Tata to procure each H-1B visa during the relevant period would have been $6,460. 2 Case: 25-403