Dallas Attorney Denies H-1B Fraud Claims Linked to MTG

(DALLAS, TEXAS, USA) — A Dallas-area attorney publicly rebutted sweeping fraud claims tied to H-1B filings after a former congresswoman amplified allegations, as federal policy shifts raise questions about integrity, enforcement, and the future of the program.

Section 1: Overview of the H-1B controversy in North Texas

January 14, 2026 set off a fast-moving North Texas debate after former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene shared a viral video on X alleging “serious H-1B visa fraud” in the Dallas area.

The video’s framing was simple: big numbers, suburban homes, and the suggestion that the system is being “approved” at industrial scale. North Texas became the backdrop because the video pointed to addresses in Frisco, Plano, and Irving, and named Chand Parvathaneni, a Dallas immigration attorney, as the central figure.

Those claims spread quickly in part because they blended three different things that sound similar in everyday speech but are not the same in law: (1) labor filings, (2) immigration petitions, and (3) visa issuance or entry decisions.

• DOL (the U.S. Department of Labor) runs the labor-compliance side for many H-1B cases, including LCAs (Labor Condition Applications).
• USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) decides the immigration petition itself (the employer’s H-1B request).
• A “visa” stamp and admission at the border involve other steps after USCIS approval, and they are not decided by private attorneys.

That mix-up is one reason social media debates can inflate routine filing volumes into claims of mass “visa approvals.”

Section 2: Allegations and the attorney’s rebuttal

The viral claim amplified by Greene alleged that Parvathaneni “approved” roughly 400,000 H-1B applications by 2024 and nearly 700,000 by 2025, and that multiple H-1B workers were tied to single residential addresses.

For that allegation to be accurate as stated, a private attorney would need legal authority to approve visas. That is not how the system works; approval decisions are vested in government agencies.

On January 16, 2026, Parvathaneni responded in a clarification video and public statements. His central point was about who decides what: “I do not approve visas; all decisions are made solely by USCIS (for H-1B) and the Department of Labor (for LCAs),” he said.

He also addressed the headline numbers, saying the 700,000 figure refers to LCAs filed over many years, not a single-year count of visas granted. That distinction matters because the annual H-1B cap is 85,000, making any implication of hundreds of thousands of H-1B “approvals” in one year inconsistent with how the program is structured.

Prevailing wage claims also need careful handling. The prevailing wage is the pay floor meant to align wages with the local market for a given job and level, and employers often list similar wages because compliance rules push toward standardized wage levels for the same job category.

Remote work is another area where online commentary often misses the compliance mechanics. Working from a home address is not automatically illegal; problems arise when the worksite location is not properly disclosed, when LCA posting obligations are skipped, or when a third-party arrangement hides the real worksite.

Below is a concise explanatory summary (not a tool) to clarify the key roles and stages in the H-1B process that were central to the dispute.

• LCA (Labor Condition Application): Labor attestation tied to wages, worksite, and notice — decided by DOL. An LCA supports an H-1B petition but is not an immigration “approval.”
• H-1B petition (Form I-129): Immigration benefit request filed by the employer — decided by USCIS, which may approve, deny, or issue an RFE.
• Visa stamp / admission: Travel and entry step after USCIS approval (for many workers) — decided by U.S. government officers at consular posts or ports of entry and separate from attorneys’ filings.

Because this section will have an interactive tool added, the above prose leads into that tool by explaining the distinctions and showing why numbers that conflate filings and approvals can be misleading.

Section 3: Official USCIS and DHS statements and actions

Federal officials have recently used strong language about “program integrity,” even when not addressing any one viral claim. On December 23, 2025, Matthew Tragesser, a USCIS spokesperson, said the random selection process “was exploited and abused by U.S. employers who were primarily seeking to import foreign workers at lower wages than they would pay American workers.”

On January 5, 2026, Tragesser added: “As part of the Trump Administration’s commitment to H-1B reform, we will continue to demand more from both employers and aliens so as not to undercut American workers and to put America first.”

Those statements signal enforcement priorities, not a finding that any specific person in North Texas committed fraud. That distinction is legal due process in action.

Enforcement actions also have stages. In June 2025, USCIS and the Department of Justice announced indictments tied to an employment-based visa fraud investigation involving a Dallas law firm, The Law Offices of D. Robert Jones PLLC, and two Texas residents.

An indictment is a formal accusation; it is not a conviction. Still, investigations and public integrity campaigns can increase scrutiny in unrelated cases, especially when adjudicators look harder at worksites, payroll records, and third-party placement details.

Section 4: Key policy details and statistics

Policy changes are landing at the same moment this North Texas argument is playing out, which helps explain why a local viral video can feel like a national turning point for the H-1B program.

One major flashpoint is legislation. H.R. 6937, introduced on January 2, 2026 by Greene, would eliminate the H-1B program. Introduction is only the first step; bills must move through committees, pass both chambers, and be signed to become law.

Rulemaking is also shifting selection mechanics. The Weighted Selection Rule, effective Feb 27, 2026, replaces the random lottery with a system that prioritizes higher-paid and higher-skilled workers. Supporters say it targets misuse and raises wage standards; critics warn it can price out smaller employers and invites legal challenges.

A separate pressure point is cost. A $100,000 entry fee per H-1B visa has been proposed via proclamation and is under legal appeal, creating uncertainty for hiring plans and start dates.

Finally, national statistics are fueling political heat: the annual cap is 85,000, and 71% of FY 2024 H-1B approvals went to Indian nationals. That distribution does not, by itself, prove fraud or illegality.

Because this section will have an interactive tool added, the presentation above avoids tabular layout here and instead explains the key policy changes and statistics that the tool will visualize or compare.

Section 5: Impact, significance, and potential consequences

Political controversy can change case outcomes indirectly. Even without a new statute, public pressure and integrity campaigns may lead to more Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and tougher questioning of “how the job works in real life.”

Common pressure points include specialty occupation evidence, the employer-employee relationship in consulting models, third-party worksites, and remote or hybrid worksite documentation.

• Specialty occupation evidence: job duties, degree requirements, and why the role needs specialized knowledge.
• Employer-employee relationship: who directs day-to-day work, especially in consulting models.
• Third-party worksites: end-client letters, statements of work, and proof the role exists for the entire requested period.
• Remote or hybrid work: consistent worksite documentation, LCA notice steps, and records showing the worker matches the petition terms.

An RFE typically asks for documents that connect the dots: contracts, itineraries (in some cases), organizational charts, payroll records, work product examples, and detailed duty breakdowns. Responses often succeed or fail based on consistency; small contradictions can hurt.

Green card planning can also get harder during reform cycles. Workers may want to keep careful records showing maintenance of status and job continuity, and employers may consider timing risks around PERM and I-140 steps.

Section 6: Official sources and further reading

Fast stories invite fast misinformation. Primary sources slow things down in a good way.

Start with USCIS releases that describe integrity efforts and upcoming reforms, including the USCIS Newsroom item “DHS Changes Process for Awarding H-1B Work Visas” (dated December 23, 2025) at https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-changes-process-for-awarding-h-1b-work-visas.

For enforcement actions, read the USCIS post on the employment-based visa fraud investigation tied to the Dallas-area indictments at https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/uscis-assists-in-employment-based-visa-fraud-investigation (dated June 2025).

For legislation, track H.R. 6937 on Congress.gov. When cross-checking any claim, focus on the date, the issuing agency or court, and whether the document is primary (rule text, bill text, press release, or filing).

This article covers complex legal and regulatory topics. Consult licensed immigration counsel for individual guidance.

Numbers on claims about visas and LCAs reflect filings and approvals as discussed in official materials; interpretations vary by context.