The Course · Lesson 6

H-1B employer addresses and shell-company signals

Shared addresses and thin public footprints can be leads for investigation. A residence, mailbox, or virtual office does not by itself prove that an employer is fictitious. This lesson explains three indicators and the evidence needed to test them.

Tells: 3
Address clue: Needs verification
Worksites: Third-party
Detection: Clustering

The model

A documented example appears in the government’s Narang v. United States brief. It describes the EcomNets scheme and companies that served as applicants without being independent. This is evidence about that criminal case, not a conclusion about all high-volume filers. Current selection counts each beneficiary once and weights entries by wage level from FY2027.^[1]^[2]

An employer address and a proposed worksite are different fields. A petitioner can place workers at a client site. An address cluster can show recorded connections, but it does not establish actual staffing, ownership, or office use without further evidence.^[3]

The three tells

Too many filings at one address

Many LCA records can use one small address, such as a home, suite, or mailing service. The employer address can differ from the proposed worksite. A cluster is a lead, not proof of a fake office. Check the address’s purpose and the relationships between the named businesses.

Many “employers” at one address

Several employer names can share a recorded address. Unrelated businesses can use the same mailing service or office. Verify the address’s use and the companies’ ownership before treating the cluster as evidence of a shell network.

The employer-worksite gap

Compare the employer address with the proposed worksites. A staffing firm can propose work at a client’s site. The records show that proposed relationship; they do not prove who supervised a worker or who replaced a laid-off employee. Inspect any linked WARN notice and the match method.^[4]

Why the model is hard to stop

Clustering can expose recorded links across employer names. The government’s Narang brief gives one documented shell-company scheme. The DOL willful-violator list gives named findings and dates. That list alone does not prove that operators closed one company and resumed under another.^[5]

Use address and representative links together as leads. A new name at a shared address can have a lawful explanation. Verify owners, registration records, office use, and the source representative field before concluding that two entities form one network.

See it in the data

Try it on the live site

On any employer page, check the worksite address. See whether it carries an abnormal cluster flag. Check whether the employer’s filings list real worksites or only its own mailbox. The ghost-office score ranks how thin the employer’s footprint is.

FAQ

Questions about the data & methods

What is an H-1B shell company?

The government’s Narang brief describes companies that served as applicants without being independent, with fictitious jobs and supporting records. That is one documented case. A new company, shared address, agent, or high filing volume does not by itself establish a shell company or fraud.

How do you detect shell companies in public data?

Compare recorded addresses, agents, formation dates, and ownership links, then inspect the underlying records. Shared service providers can connect unrelated businesses. These comparisons help choose questions; they do not determine ownership, operations, or a violation.

Where does the corporate registry data come from?

The archive uses selected state business registries and SEC records. Coverage is partial. Employer and network pages identify the records available for their links. A registry record does not establish that an employer operates at every recorded address.

References

[1] Primary record · U.S. Department of Justice. Brief in Opposition: Narang v. United States. Supreme Court docket No. 21-851; government opposition brief, February 2022; Statement, printed pages 2–4 (PDF pages 6–8)The government describes evidence in a particular criminal case. Shared addresses alone do not prove the same scheme.Checked 2026-10-18.
[2] Law or rulemaking · DHS. Weighted Selection of Registrants and Petitioners for the H-1B Cap. 90 FR 60864; final rule, effective February 27, 2026; amended 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)FY2027 weighting, lowest wage level across registrations and worksites, and registration fields.Checked 2026-10-12.
[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. 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] 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.

Lesson 7 separates permitted filing mechanisms from possible misuse.

Keep going

Willful Violators Next: Legal Tricks