A ranked list of employers by estimated signals. Start your research here.
The Course · Lesson 8 · Hands-on
H-1B record research: a detective lesson for kids
You are the investigator. Your job is to pick a real company. Dig through its public record on this website. Find the red flags. Then write your own investigator’s report with the evidence cited, the way a real one would be. By the end you will have done the same kind of work a journalist or a government lawyer does on day one.
- Red flags
- 4
- Tools
- 2
- Report sections
- 5
- Grading
- 10 pts
The case
The case (what you are looking into)
A company in America wants someone for a skilled job. It can ask the government to approve H-1B work. First it makes wage and working-condition promises to the Department of Labor. It must promise the required wage, protect working conditions, meet the strike rules, and give notice. There are also rules for the petition and permission to work.[1][2]
The government publishes the wage-promise applications. Those records are not permission slips that prove someone arrived or started work. Pick a company, inspect its record, and report what the evidence supports. You can also find that there is not enough evidence to decide.[3]
Your detective tools
Your detective tools
You only need two pages on this website:
One page per employer shows its stored filings and linked records. Wipro Limited is an example to explore. Check each flag against its source and dates; the page alone is not an enforcement decision.
Tip: open the employer page in a new tab so you can keep the leaderboard open too.
How to investigate
How to investigate (step by step)
Start your research.
Open the leaderboard. A willful-violator badge points to a published DOL finding. Read the named employer and dates before you use it. A past finding does not prove a current bar or a new violation.
Read the file.
Scroll the whole employer page. Read the numbers and their sources. Use the four flags below to choose records to inspect. More flags do not automatically make a stronger case.
Collect evidence.
For every flag you find, write down one number and one link. Example: “Wage gap: 28% below market. Link: the employer page.” Real investigators cite their sources. So do you.
Write the report.
Use the report template below. Fill in every section. The report is your answer to the case: not a guess, not a feeling, but what the record shows.
The four red flags
The four red flags (in your words)
The “Broke the Rules” badge
DOL published a willful-violation finding for the named employer. Under the wage and working-condition rules, willful failure means knowing failure or reckless disregard. Check the finding date and any disqualification period. The badge does not prove a new violation.[4]
The Ghost Office
Several employer names use the same recorded address. That is a clue. Unrelated businesses can share an office or a mailing service. Check what the address is used for before calling it a fake office.
The Wage Gap
The company offered a wage below the stated BLS benchmark for that occupation. This does not show the wages actually paid. A gap is a reason to ask more questions; it does not by itself prove that the company used a visa to cut pay.[5]
The Swap-Out
When you find a WARN notice near the same employer’s LCA filings, compare the records. An LCA does not identify each beneficiary, show arrival, or say who replaced whom. Write what the notice and filings show.
The detective's rule of thumb
One flag is a clue. Several flags can help you choose what to inspect. Their number alone does not establish wrongdoing. Explain the evidence and other possible causes.
Your report
Your report (copy or print this)
INVESTIGATOR’S REPORT
Case #: _________ Date: _________
Detective: ____________________
1. EMPLOYER REVIEWED
Name: ____________________________
Industry: ________________________
Employer page link: ________________
2. THE RED FLAGS I FOUND (check all that apply)
[ ] Broke-the-Rules badge (willful violator)
[ ] Ghost Office
[ ] Wage Gap
[ ] Layoff and filing overlap
3. THE EVIDENCE (one line per flag)
Flag ___: what the record shows: ____________
the number: ________ link: __________
Flag ___: what the record shows: ____________
the number: ________ link: __________
4. WHY IT MATTERS (in your own words)
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
5. WHAT THE RECORDS SUPPORT
[ ] A cited government decision establishes the stated past violation.
[ ] These records raise a question that needs more evidence.
[ ] I found no violation in the records I reviewed.
[ ] Not enough evidence on this record.
Why I picked that: ________________________
A FINISHED EXAMPLE (from the cited DOL list)
Case # 001 Source checked: October 8, 2026
Detective: Agent Maple
1. EMPLOYER REVIEWED
Name: Bonzer, LLC
Source: DOL H-1B Willful Violator List
Finding date on the list: July 18, 2023
2. THE RED FLAGS I FOUND (check all that apply)
[x] Broke-the-Rules badge (willful violator)
[ ] Ghost Office
[ ] Wage Gap
[ ] Layoff and filing overlap
3. THE EVIDENCE (one line per flag)
Flag 1: DOL’s list names Bonzer, LLC with a July 18, 2023 determination.
The number: one named list entry. Source: reference beside this sentence.
Flag 2: I have not established a layoff or replacement from this source.
4. WHY IT MATTERS (in your own words)
The source supports the named, dated willful-violation entry.
It does not identify a new violation, worker replacement, or a current bar.
5. WHAT THE RECORDS SUPPORT
[x] A cited government source records a past determination.
Why I picked that: the list supplies the employer name and finding date.
I have no evidence here for the other three flags.
I do not describe a past finding as proof of current wrongdoing.
How it is graded
How the report is graded (for teachers & parents)
Grade the method and the evidence. A careful report can conclude that the reviewed records do not support a finding. That does not establish that the company has never broken a rule. Check these five skills:
| Skill being graded | What “full credit” looks like | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Found a real employer | Named a specific company from this site, not a guess. | 1 |
| Identified the flags correctly | Checked only flags that actually appear on the employer’s page; did not invent any. | up to 4 |
| Cited real evidence | At least one real number and link per flag claimed. | 2 |
| Explained why it matters | In their own words (not copied) and accurate. | 2 |
| Supported conclusion | The conclusion matches the reviewed evidence. Distinguish a dated finding, an open question, and insufficient evidence. | 1 |
| Bonus: other explanations | Explained another possible cause and what evidence could distinguish it. | +1 |
Total out of 10 (11 with the bonus). A score of 8+ is a strong investigator’s report.
One rule every detective follows
One rule every detective follows
Never blame a company for something the record does not show. If a flag is not on the page, you cannot claim it. The whole reason this site works, and the whole reason real investigations hold up, is that every claim is tied to a public record. Cite your evidence, or leave the claim out. That is the job.
Look it up yourself
FAQ
Questions about the data & methods
What is the H-1B visa, in simple words?
H-1B permits eligible work in a specialty occupation. The employer must meet petition rules and promise the required pay and working conditions. A public wage application shows those promises. It does not prove who arrived or what was paid.
Why do people worry about it?
A government case can show false job promises, unpaid time, or prohibited charges. A layoff near visa filings is a question to check. The overlap alone does not show which workers arrived or replaced someone.[7]
How can I check a company my family talks about?
Search for the employer. Read its requested positions, offered wages, and comparison benchmark. Follow each number to its source. These records do not show payroll or identify every worker.
References
- [1] Law or rulemaking · eCFR. H-1B petitions and specialty occupations. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(A), (D)–(E); (h)(4)(i)(B), including (B)(3) third-party requirements; (h)(9)(i); (h)(10)(ii), (iv); (h)(18): petition, LCA, approval and denial noticesPetition approval, visa issuance, admission, and work authorization are separate steps.Checked 2026-10-17.
- [2] Law or rulemaking · eCFR. Labor Condition Application contents. 20 CFR 655.730(c): application fields; 655.730(d)(1)–(4): wage, working-condition, strike/lockout and notice attestationsChecked 2026-10-17.
- [3] Dataset documentation · DOL OFLC. LCA public disclosure record layout (FY2026 Q3). Pages 1–4: application, DOL outcome and dates, requested positions, employer, representatives, worksites and pay unitsThis layout covers determinations issued October 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. It documents employer-provided application fields and DOL decisions, not USCIS decisions, payroll verification, legal bills or worker-linked moves. Older layouts can differ.Checked 2026-10-17.
- [4] Law or rulemaking · eCFR. Willful violations. 20 CFR 655.805(c)Knowing failure or reckless disregard. A public-data indicator is not this finding.Checked 2026-10-08.
- [5] Dataset documentation · BLS. OEWS technical notes (May 2025). Scope of the survey; occupational coding; concepts and estimation methodologyDocuments occupation and geographic wage estimates, not an individual worker’s pay. Use the estimate year and geography stated by the site; older releases can differ.Checked 2026-10-17.
- [6] Primary record · DOL Wage and Hour Division. H-1B Willful Violator List. List effective October 1, 2026; named employers and willful-violation determination datesThis list gives determination dates, not disqualification periods. A historical listing does not prove a current bar or wrongdoing by a similarly named entity.Checked 2026-10-17.
- [7] Primary record · U.S. Department of Justice. Brothers Sentenced on Visa Fraud Convictions. Northern District of Texas, June 3, 2016; Dibon caseThis is a specific adjudicated example of false job representations, unpaid bench time, and prohibited fee shifting. It does not establish prevalence across staffing firms.Checked 2026-10-08.
The last lesson hands the method to you. The archive is open.