This paper investigates patterns of complement clauses in Persian and Hindi, building upon Manetta (2012)’s PF-linearization for Hindi. Although both languages require postverbal placement of complement clauses, they show an opposite order between postverbal clauses when a relative clause is also extraposed. To account for this contrast, I argue that the PF-linearization constraint in Manetta (2012) applies cyclicly in each Spell-Out domain. This argument is coupled with [EPP] in the vP phase. I demonstrate that behaviors of pronominal correlates and cross-clausal dependencies indicate the presence of [EPP] in Hindi, but the absence of [EPP] in Persian. This [EPP]-profile situates the complement clause inside of VP in Persian but outside of VP in Hindi, and the result is that complement clauses are linearized in different domains in the two languages.