This lesson groups five patterns that an investigator can inspect. Some conduct inside them violates wage, fee, or other rules when proven. A filing pattern alone is not a fraud finding. Read the rule, inspect the source record, and identify what evidence is still missing.
Keep four things apart. A legal element is the rule an adjudicator applies. An indicator is a pattern in the records that deserves a closer look. An allegation is a claim nobody has adjudicated. An adjudicated example is a case DOL or a court has decided. The five patterns below are indicators in public records. Some acts inside them are clear violations once proven; others are legal filings used to a harmful end. This site shows the records. A court or DOL decides the label.
The five patterns
1
Wage suppression
Wage comparison · check the required-wage rule
An offered wage can be below the stated BLS occupation median. This is a descriptive comparison. It does not by itself prove that the employer selected the wrong level, paid below the required wage, or caused wages to fall. Check the job requirements, wage source, actual-wage evidence, and payroll.[1][2][3]
The detail
A possible mismatch to inspect is a worker performing duties different from those stated in the petition and LCA. Compare the actual duties and job requirements with the filed documents. A job-title difference alone does not establish misclassification.[4]
Indicator in the records
A wide gap between the LCA wage and the BLS market median for the same SOC code, measured nationally (our benchmark). The wage-gap leaderboard ranks employers by exactly this gap.
2
Displacement
Pattern to inspect · touches Promise #2
A WARN notice reports layoffs. The same employer also files LCAs near that notice. This is a pattern to inspect. WARN and LCA records do not identify person-for-person replacements, workers’ nationality, or the wages ultimately paid.[5]
Indicator in the records
The site matches the same employer using a window from three calendar months before to six after the WARN notice date, with an effective-date fallback. Geography contributes to the score; it is not a required exact-address match. Read the matching method and the underlying notice.[6]
3
Unpaid bench time and worker exploitation
Wage rules and forced-labor law are separate tests
Employer-caused nonproductive time generally requires pay under the LCA wage rules. In the Dibon case, DOJ reports convictions involving workers who were paid only for billable client time. The regulation has separate rules for qualifying voluntary or unrelated absences.[7]
The detail
H-1B workers can be victims of employer fraud. Unpaid bench time alone does not establish forced labor. Read the worker exploitation and trafficking guide for warning signs, rights, and ways to report employer abuse.[8][9]
Indicator in the records
LCAs filed in large batches by a single employer with few or no reported worksites. Also, worker complaints of unpaid “training” periods.
4
Kickbacks
Illegal by rule · 20 CFR 655.731(c)(10)
An employer demands a prohibited payment from the worker. Examples include shifting the ACWIA fee to the worker, charging a penalty for leaving early, or deducting employer business costs below the required wage. The rules distinguish penalties from lawful liquidated damages. See 20 CFR 655.731(c)(9)–(10). Filings alone do not show that a worker made these payments.
The detail
In the Dibon case, DOJ reports that workers paid fees through cash or checks to “Dibon Training Center.” That is a specific adjudicated example. A “training fee” label alone does not prove that another employer imposed a prohibited payment.
Indicator in the records
This pattern is hard to see in filings alone. It appears in whistleblower documents, civil suits, and DOL investigations.
5
Cost-shifting to the public
Public-cost hypothesis · needs separate evidence
Public-cost shifting is a hypothesis that needs household and program evidence. An LCA shows an offered wage. It does not show benefit eligibility, household income, enrollment, or public spending. A low wage alone cannot establish a taxpayer cost.
The detail
Unpaid employer-caused bench time can violate the wage rule. Payroll and employment evidence are needed to prove it. An LCA alone does not establish either unpaid time or public-assistance use.
Indicator in the records
Compare offered wages as a lead. Use benefit-program and household evidence before claiming that the public paid an employer’s labor costs.
These patterns overlap
These patterns overlap
Inspect each indicator and its evidence separately. Several indicators can appear together, but their overlap does not establish fraud or validate a probability of wrongdoing. Check benign explanations, missing records, and any named government findings before drawing a conclusion.
See it in the data
FAQ
Questions about the data & methods
What evidence establishes a wage violation?
DOL’s wage rule compares required pay with what the employer paid. Payroll, employment, and fee evidence are needed to assess compliance. An offered wage below a BLS median cannot establish a violation alone. The remedy rules permit assessed back wages and penalties for specified violations.[11]
How can I check if a company committed H-1B fraud?
Search the employer's retained filings, offered wages, layoff notices, and any linked government findings. Follow each source link and check its dates and scope. These records do not show every employer action or prove fraud by themselves.
Is an H-1B violation always fraud?
No. A violation is a legal finding; a pattern is a question. This site shows the patterns (the filings, wages, layoffs, and adjudicated cases) and labels which numbers are counted facts and which are modeled estimates. The legal conclusion is somebody else's job.
References
[1]Law or rulemaking · eCFR. 20 CFR 655.731. 20 CFR 655.731(a); 20 CFR 655.731(c)(7); 20 CFR 655.731(c)(9)The required wage is the higher of the actual wage and prevailing wage. An independent market median is a comparison, not this legal test.; Employer-caused nonproductive time and qualifying voluntary or unrelated absences have different rules.; Also read paragraph (c)(10). Employer business costs cannot reduce pay below the required wage.Checked 2026-10-08.
[2]Guidance · DOL OFLC. Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance. Revised November 2009; Level I through Level IV definitions; Appendix C, wage-level worksheetChecked 2026-10-08.
[3]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.
[4]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.
[5]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.
[6]XH1B method or registry · XH1B. Displacement Model and Assumptions. Eligibility, requested-position weighting, scopes, WARN matching, and counting limitsModel outputs are estimates. A matched layoff notice does not prove that an H-1B worker replaced a laid-off worker.
[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.
[8]Primary record · U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Colorado. Kizzy Kalu sentencing for forced labor and trafficking. February 11, 2014; sentencing and trial-evidence accountA dated DOJ account of this case. It does not establish current wrongdoing by other employers or trafficking prevalence.Checked 2026-10-09.
[9]Law or rulemaking · U.S. Congress / Government Publishing Office. 18 USC 1589: Forced labor. 18 USC 1589(a)–(c)U.S. Code, 2024 edition. Lists the prohibited means of obtaining labor and the serious-harm standard.Checked 2026-10-09.
[11]Law or rulemaking · eCFR. Back wages, penalties, and disqualification. 20 CFR 655.810(a)–(b), (d): back wages, civil money penalties and minimum petition-approval disqualification periodsParagraph (d) gives minimum disqualification periods of one, two, or three years by violation tier. Paragraphs (a)–(b) cover back wages and penalties.Checked 2026-10-18.
Lesson 3 turns the five patterns into a checklist you can run on any employer page.
